Allowed

Daisy and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2024/712/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for eight applicants facing prosecution for a matrimonial dispute. The court noted the exclusive nature of the dispute, the applicants' age, lack of criminal history, and no flight risk. Bail was granted on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail granted to eight applicants on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties each subject to specific conditions.

Daisy and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33512

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 712 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Daisy And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Misra,Vartika Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Complaint case no.1689 of 2019 [New Complaint Case no.432 of 2023 (Rajrani vs Vikasbabu and others)] under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Hasanganj District Unnao during trial.

¶8

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants who submit that they have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there is matrimonial dispute pending between the complainant and Jaykant Gautam.

¶10

The applicant no.1 has also filed petition seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act engaging the attention of the Special Judge/ Family Court, Ghaziabad. It is also submitted that another proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is also engaging the attention of the Magistrate concerned in Ghaziabad which has also been filed by the applicant no.1. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the complainant had filed complaint where the present applicants are alleged to have assaulted the complainant.

¶11

It is urged that in light of the matrimonial dispute since the applicant no.1 had initiated the proceedings accordingly as a counterblast the complainant also filed the complaint case no.432 of 2023 (Rajrani vs Vikas Babu and others) under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC P.S Hasanganj District Unnao.

¶12

Further submission is that all the family members of the applicants have been unnecessarily roped in by the complainant, the applicant nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother, both senior citizen. The applicant no.4 is the sister of

¶13

the applicant no.1. The applicant no.5 is brother while applicant nos.6 and 7 are the maternal uncle and aunt of the applicant no.1 (Mausa and Mausi respectively) while the applicant no.8 is the cousin brother of the applicant no.1 (son of Mausi).

¶14

It is further pointed that the applicants are ready to cooperate in the proceedings, however, considering their age as well as number of family members have deliberately been roped. This prompted the applicants to file application u/S 482/378/407 which was entertained by the Court bearing no.2418 of 2019 (Vikas Babu and ors vs State) wherein interim protection was granted vide order dated 23.04.2019 which has been brought on record as Annexure-SA-2. The said order continued to be extended from time to time, however, post 20th November, 2019, the said interim order was not extended. In the meantime, the applicants also preferred another petition under Section 482 no.5846 of 2023 (Daisy and ors vs State and another) which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by means of the order dated 13.06.2023. It is also pointed out that in the aforesaid backdrop considering the age and relationship as well as the dispute the applicants who otherwise have followed the procedure may be granted anticipatory bail as warrants have been issued by the trial court.

¶15

Sri Shukla learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the aforesaid application and submit that the applicants have been successful in delaying the trial by filing successive petitions before the Court. It is also pointed out that subsequent petition preferred under Section 482 by the applicants was done mischievously since interim order granted in the earlier petition was not extended post November, 2019, however, this fact was pointed out to the Court that the applicants withdrew the petition. In such circumstances the applicants are not entitled for any indulgence of Court.

¶16

Learned AGA has also adopted the same submissions.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances and the submission made by respective parties including the pendency of the matrimonial proceedings between the parties as well as the fact that the complainants have lodged complaint against the entire family of the applicants, noticing the age, nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicants including that the applicants have no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicants are at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and they shall cooperate in the trial and the Court shall also expedite the trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant

¶18

anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Daisy, Rajendra Prasad, Chandrakanti, Tapshya, Vikasbabu, Radheshyam, Gauri Devi, Sanghmitra involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned with the conditions:-

¶20

(a) that the applicants shall make themself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶21

(b) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶22

¶23

(d) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶24

(e) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶26

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶27

Order Date :- 29.4.2024

¶28

Harshita

¶29

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Daisy and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daisy and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Asif Ansari @ Munnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rudra Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Lucknow, U.P.

Dhruv Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.