Allowed

Anshu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024ABAIL/1893/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed an application for interim protection under Section 438 CrPC granted in a FIR involving dowry death and abetment to suicide. The court made the interim protection absolute, directing that the applicant be released on bail in case of arrest upon furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection under Section 438 CrPC was made absolute; applicant to be released on personal and surety bonds if arrested.

Anshu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59498

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1893 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anshu Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore,Abhishek Upadhyay,Bhavesh Chandel,Rishabh Chauhan,Sachin Upadhyay

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/ Case Crime No.122 of 2024 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kumarganj, district Ayodhya.

¶9

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

¶10

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 21.08.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶11

"The present application has been filed by the applicant Anshu Pratap Singh seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.122 of 2024 under Section 498-A, 304B IPC under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kumarganj, District Ayodhya.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Smt. Jamvanti Devi has been granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1686 of 2024.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant is brother-in-law of the deceased. Like co-accused Jamvanti Devi the applicant was

¶15

also residing at Chandauli with her and is a practicing Advocate. He submits that on the date of incident he was in district court Chandauli.

¶16

Attention of the Court has been invited by learned counsel for the applicant towards the Affidavits (pages 86 and 105 to the bail application)which were given to the Superintendent of Police regarding the presence of the applicant on the date of incident, in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶17

Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the contention, however, does not dispute the fact that the case of the applicant is on similar footing with the co-accused Jamvanti Devi.

¶18

Perused the record.

¶19

This Court while granting interim protection to the co-accused Jamvanti Devi vide order dated 31.7.2024 (supra) has passed the following order:-

¶20

"1.The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.122 of 2024 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C., 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kumarganj, district Ayodhya.

¶21

2.Heard Mr. Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhavesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rao Narendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.

¶22

3.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the informant married her daughter on 7.12.2022 with Dr. Anup Kumar Singh and Rs.45 lacs dowry was given by way of cash and cheque. By the dowry paid through cheque, a Creta car has been purchased. 100 gram of gold was also given. After few days of marriage, a baby child was born. After few days, the accused persons named in the first information report demanded money for purchasing flat for their younger son. Due to that, often abuses were hurled and the victim was subjected to assault and beating. On 15.6.2024, it was informed that daughter of the informant committed suicide. It is further alleged that the neighbours were saying that initially, she has been done to death by throttling and then she has been hanged.

¶23

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the contents of the first information report are not corroborated at all by statement of prosecution witnesses. None of the witnesses of the

¶24

prosecution has alleged while giving statement under section 161 CrPC that the deceased was done to death first and thereafter was hanged. The other allegation in the first information report that a Creta car was purchased from the dowry through cheque is false. Attention of this court has been invited towards page 71 of the paper book which are loan documents of the Creta vehicle which shows that it was purchased on loan.

¶25

It is further submitted that as per post mortem report, cause of death is anti mortem hanging. It is a case of suicide. According to the post mortem report, hyoid bone is intact. The post mortem report is signed by three-Member team which conducted the post mortem. There is no other ante mortem injury except ligature mark. It is submitted that son of the applicant was very much present in the inquest. Even in the opinion of the inquest witness, cause of death is ante mortem suicide. Husband of the deceased and the complainant both were present in the inquest proceedings and it is not the case of the complainant at the time of inquest that it is not a case of suicide.In support of his contention, learned counsel has shown Modi's "A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicoly" Vol 26 "Chapter 20 Deaths from Asphyxia" in order to show that normally in the case of suicide, fracture of hyoid is rare. In this case, even there is no fracture of hyoid.

¶26

It is submitted that the applicant who is mother-in-law of 66 years of age resides far away from the place of the incident which took place at House No.B-87 Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, district Faizabad (Ayodhya) whereas the applicant resides at Ward No.4, Nehru Nagar, Nagar Panchayat Chandauli along with her husband and son Anshu Pratap Singh who is a practicing lawyer in Civil Court.

¶27

It is also submitted that son of the applicant was initially selected at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hariharpur, Vaishali in Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar and joined the services on 7.3.2022. It is at this place he initially met the deceased daughter-in-law of the applicant. After marriage, both were residing as husband and wife at Near Malang Baba Sthaan, Purvi Dighi Kalan, Hazipur, Vaishali in the State of Bihar. After delivery of baby at Patna, she was employed in Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, district Faizabad

¶28

(Ayodhya. So, it was actually a love marriage. Except bald assertion in the first information report, there is no material to say that it was a case where dowry was given.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶30

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the contention and submitted that the Supreme Court in Rajbir alias Raju and another versus State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 116 has made it mandatory that in all the cases where there is a case of dowry death, the trial court shall ordinarily add section 302 I.P.C. to charge of section 304-B I.P.C.

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicant replying the objection has submitted that this law in the case of Rajbir (supra) has been modified in the judgment Jasvinder Saini and others versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2013)7 SCC 256 (relevant paras 14, 15 and 16). It is submitted that the direction given in Rajbir's case (supra) was not meant to be followed mechanically and without due regard to the nature of evidence available in the case. It was held by Supreme Court that the court in Rajbir's case (supra) meant to say that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits. No other meaning could be deduced from the order of the Court.

¶32

He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court at Allahabad in Rammilan Bunkar versus State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine All 3140 (relevant paras 11 and 12). The law has been reiterated and the trial court has been directed to first primarily satisfy itself on the basis of sufficient material on record which justifies the addition or alteration of charge.

¶33

6.Learned A.G.A. further submits that although in the post mortem report, three doctors have signed post mortem report where there is finding that hyoid bone is intact, however, two of them while giving statement under section 161 CrPC said that hyoid bone was fractured. It is a heinous offence and looking to the gravity of the offence, anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.

¶34

He prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file objections/counter affidavit.

¶35

7.List on 20.8.2024.

¶36

8.Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, prima facie, it appears that the applicant who is a lady

¶37

of 66 years old is residing far away from the place where the incident took place with her son and husband in her matrimonial home, post mortem report, inquest report and statement of prosecution witnesses, prima facie, it appears that it is a case of suicide and case for interim protection is made out.

¶38

9. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶39

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶40

10. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶41

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit of the case."

¶42

On due consideration to the facts that both the applicant and the co-accused Jamvanti Devi are residing together at Chandauli and the parameters for consideration while passing the order dated 31.7.2024 (supra) apply to this case also, accordingly till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶43

¶44

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. List on 11.9.2024 along with CRIMINAL MISC

¶45

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 1686 of 2024."

¶46

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has filed the bonds and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. This statement is not disputed by learned counsel for the State.

¶47

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, submits that charge-sheet in the case has not been filed.

¶48

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and coupled with the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation as also the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶49

In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Anshu Pratap Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned with the following conditions:-

¶50

(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses.

¶51

(2) The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/1.O./S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation.

¶52

(3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶53

(4) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶54

The application disposed of.

¶55

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶56

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

Anshu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav Shukla S/O Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sundarpata Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Mushik @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Barkat Khan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Anr.

Pankaj @ Hansraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.