Dismissed

Chandra Bhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023ABAIL/7586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Chandra Bhan feared arrest in a dowry death case where the deceased committed suicide. The court held that despite the legal status of the second marriage, there was evidence of dowry harassment and cruelty within seven years, making the applicant unfit for bail. Bail was refused pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected; the application is disposed of without expressing an opinion on merits.

Chandra Bhan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143057

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7586 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.0062 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kathela Samay Mata, District Siddharth Nagar, the present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant - Chandra Bhan seeking anticipatory bail.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased Sapna alias Archana, the daughter of the informant, was married with accused Vinay Bhatt in May, 2023, but she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by her husband and father-in-law, who is the present accused applicant and being perturbed with that, she committed suicide on 30.5.2023. F.I.R. was lodged on 31.5.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that the I.O. has collected the evidence to the effect that the deceased was married with one Bachchan s/o Ram Janam on 7.7.2021 and she was residing with her in-laws. It is further submitted that Vinay Bhatt, the main accused, is said to entice away the deceased and performed marriage with her on 9.5.2023 in a temple and they started living as husband and wife. Since the first marriage of the deceased was subsisting, the so-called second marriage with accused Vinay Bhatt is not a legal marriage and on that ground, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 304-B IPC are lacking in this matter. It is further submitted that the

¶10

deceased committed suicide on humiliation made by her own parents. It is further submitted that earlier the Session Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. No demand of dowry was ever made from the deceased of the case. It is further submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased shows the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging and no external injury has been found over the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A.vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that brother of the deceased in his statement given to the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that after marriage with co-accused Vinay Bhatt, both the accused persons, who are named in the F.I.R., started demanding dowry from the deceased and she was also subjected to cruelty and harassment by them. It is further submitted that the present accused applicant, being the father-inlaw of the deceased, had played active role in the commission of the crime. The death of the deceased has been caused otherwise than seven years in her matrimonial house. The offence committed by the accused is very grievous and heinous in nature and as such, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

In the forum of anticipatory bail, this Court is not obliged to go into the legality of the marriage of the deceased with co-accused Vinay Bhatt. There is ample evidence on record that after performing marriage with co-accused Vinay Bhatt, who is the son of the present accused applicant, the deceased and co-accused Vinay Bhatt are living as husband and wife. There is also ample evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by present applicant also and admittedly her death has been caused within seven years of her marriage under otherwise than normal circumstances.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity

¶14

of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 ss

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Bhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadat Husain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another