Allowed

Anju v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024ABAIL/1464/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a case of husband's suicide by hanging at his in-laws' residence; applicant is the deceased's widow with no criminal history, chargesheet already filed, co-accused family members already granted anticipatory bail. The court allowed the application and released her on bail on conditions till trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on anticipatory bail on arrest on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions, till conclusion of trial.

Anju vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66344

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1464 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Tribhuvan Narai Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.159 of 2017, under Sections 306, 506 IPC, relating to police station Mahmudabad, District Sitapur.

¶9

As per the allegation as contained in the FIR, it is alleged that on 01.05.2017, the applicant alongwith her husband (deceased) had gone to visit the ailing grand father of the deceased. While returning the deceased alongwith the applicant stayed at the applicant's parents residence for four days. It is then alleged that since the deceased did not return home, hence his father received information from his relative that the deceased had died at the residence of the applicant's parents (in the house of the in-laws of the deceased). The complainant thereafter reached

¶10

the residence of his son's in-laws and got a complaint registered stating that his son had committed suicide by hanging at the house of his in-laws.

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the widow of the deceased. Merely because of unfortunate, incident occurred in the residence of the applicant's parents, would not mean or indicate any complicity of the applicant and her family members. It was further urged that there was no material on record nor any incriminating material has surfaced implicating the applicant to the alleged crime.

¶12

It is further submitted that during investigating, the applicant has cooperated and she at no point of time was required for any custodial interrogation. It is further urged that in so far as the applicant is concerned, at the relevant time, she was not present at the residence of her parents rather she had gone out and in such circumstances, the applicant is being harassed unnecessary.

¶13

Further submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that even in the postmortem report, the cause of death has been shown as asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and at the sametime no injury marks were found on the body of the deceased. It has also been urged that initially the FIR was lodged invoking Section 304 and 306 IPC but upon investigation,

¶14

the said section has been diluted and proceedings have been made under Section 306 and 506 IPC.

¶15

It is also urged that a chargesheet has already been filed in the Court under Section 306 and 506 IPC. The applicant has deep roots in the society and she is not in a position to either influence any witness or tamper with any evidence. In such circumstance where the other family members of the applicant have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Similar protection should also be granted to the applicant.

¶16

Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts including that the other family members have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Having considered the submissions and considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that she has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant-Anji involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond

¶19

with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(b) that the applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

(e) that the applicant 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 applicant.

¶26

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant 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 :- 23.9.2024 ank

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anju v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju 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

Jag Narain Pandey Vs Ayodhya Prasad and Others

Tamseel and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Anubhag Lko.

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar Vs Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Chandrakala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Thru Its Manager vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Raja Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others