Allowed

Vaseem Ahmad and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2023ABAIL/9729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Court awarded anticipatory bail to six applicants in a dowry-related case involving allegations of cruelty, cheat, grievous hurt, and dowry demand. Bail granted till trial conclusion on personal bond with sureties standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in like amount.

Vaseem Ahmad and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175920

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9729 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vaseem Ahmad And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Vaseem Ahmad, Smt. Shabina Begum, Smt. Fatima Shamim, Mohd. Shamim, Smt. Salma Khan, Shakil Beg and Anwar Hussain seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 228 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 308, 380 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district-Banda.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that the daughter of the informant was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by her in-laws, including present applicants. It is also alleged that Rs. three lacs were given by the informant through bank transaction to the accused persons and subsequently on 29.3.2022 the accused persons came to the house of the informant, where the victim/injured was residing at that time and made an assault upon her, causing grevious injuries to her and took cash and jewellery from the house of the informant. The fist information report was lodged on 6.4.2022 and after investigation the chargesheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are brother-in-laws (jeth and nandoi) and sister-in-laws (jethani and nanad) of the victim. He next submits that all the in-laws of the injured are absolutely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. He further submits that it is a case of simple matrimonial dispute between husband and wife but the whole family has been implicated in this matter. He also submits that the injured has sustained only simple injuries. The injured has been medically examined after two days of the alleged incident and the FIR was lodged after eight days of the incident without any plausible explanation. In the present matter after

¶10

investigation, the charesheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during the course of investigation. They have no criminal history to their credit. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and forcefully submitted that an amount of Rs. three lacs were transferred to the bank account of the in-laws of the victim/injured on their demand as additional dowry. It is also submitted that several injuries have been found over the body of the injured by the doctor, who has conducted his medical examination. He further submits that ample evidence has been collected against the applicants during course of investigation, hence they are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶13

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶14

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 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 applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injuries, without

¶16

expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶20

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.9.2023 Faridul

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vaseem Ahmad and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaseem Ahmad and 6 Others 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

Naushad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gena Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bachchoo and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash Oberoi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asgar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another