Allowed

Bharti Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024ABAIL/6654/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by a mother-in-law accused in a dowry and cruelty FIR including an acid allegation. The court found no criminal history or risk to investigation and granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each, subject to listed conditions including cooperation with investigation.

Bharti Pathak vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114473

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6654 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bharti Pathak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,Viveka Nand Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Bharti Pathak in Case Crime No. 192 of 2023 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Lohta, District - Varanasi.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is mother-in-law and there is a dispute between husband and wife. The allegations are general in nature with regard to demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the wife was administered acid on 19.10.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the wife herself administered acid and the husband had admitted her to the hospital. It is further submitted that thereafter wife was living with the applicant, however, on account of dispute in the marriage the present FIR has been lodged. Applicant has no previous criminal history. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of her arrest by the police any time.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the fact that the husband has admitted the wife to the hospital.

¶10

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶11

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶13

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para-2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶15

(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer

¶18

about new residential address in writing.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself/herself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶21

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶22

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶23

(ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶24

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶25

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶26

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 S.Prakash

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bharti Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharti Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Javed vs State of Up and Another

Prabhat Ranjan Mishra @ Prabhat Ranjan vs State of U.P.

Bhishma Pitamah and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Chaubey vs State of U.P.

Smt Premanjali vs State of Up and 2 Others

Dushyant Chaudhary vs Union of India and Another