Allowed

Haroon and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/54048/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Judge Krishan Pahal allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Haroon and Akeela Begum in Case Crime No.354 of 2019 involving charges of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide, subject to standard conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and permission to leave India.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Haroon and Akeela Begum released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions.

Haroon and Another Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167774

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54048 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Haroon And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Azhar Hussain,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Saban Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Azhar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.P. Patel, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.354 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, Police Station- Achhnera, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.12.2019 of this Court by a detailed order. There are particular allegations against the husband Nijarif. The applicants are relatives of the husband of the deceased person. There is no overt act assigned to the applicants of having abetted the deceased person to commit suicide. Learned counsel has stated that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 498A, 302, 201 I.P.C. but subsequently it was transformed under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. The ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not fulfilled.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that final report (charge-sheet) has been filed with respect to co-accused person Nijarif only. The investigation is going on against the applicants. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶12

against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel has further stated that the investigation is going on and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants has also stated that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation and undertakes that they will cooperate in the investigation in future also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicants.

¶14

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶15

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:-

¶16

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicants- Haroon and Akeela Begum involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶17

(B) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶18

(C) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶19

(D) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Vikas

¶22

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haroon and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haroon and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanwar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Madun Singh Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetany Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Saurabh Srivastwa Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghvendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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