Allowed

Harinath and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024ABAIL/434/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed anticipatory bail for applicants accused of abetment to suicide and cruelty, noting the co-accused husband was already on bail, the postmortem showed no injuries other than ligature mark, and the applicants had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to conditions including availability for interrogation, non-interference with evidence, and appearance before the trial court.

Harinath and Another vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20345

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 434 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harinath And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0311 of 2022, under sections 306, 498-A IPC, P.S. Khandasa, District Ayodhya.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged against the applicants, their son Rahul and Rohit alleging that marriage of the sister of the informant was solemnized with the applicants' son 14 years prior to lodging of the F.I.R.; a son and two daughters were born out of the wedlock; but all the accused persons kept on harassing the informant's sister, and on 28.12.2022 she committed suicide by hanging herself.

¶10

The postmortem examination report of the deceased does not mention any injury except a ligature mark around her neck.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application it has

¶12

been stated that the applicants are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have no criminal history. The co-accused Rahul-husband of the deceased has already been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 16.03.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3691 of 2023.

¶13

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the co-accused Rahul has already been enlarged on bail by this court coupled with the fact that the applicants have no criminal history and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants-Harinath and Gulaba before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) that the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts

¶18

to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(iii) hat the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶20

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

¶21

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 Ram.

¶24

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

Harinath and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinath and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Yadav Alias Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar @ Sant Ram Vs Smt. Shiv Rani

Narendra Dev Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

The New India Assurance Company Limited Thru. Officer in Change vs Ahshan Khan and 2 Others

Juvenile ' X' Thru. His Father Babban Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Vidhya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another