Allowed

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024ABAIL/9237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was considered by the Allahabad High Court. The court noted the lack of substantive evidence and the similar facts of a coordinate judgment. Bail was granted pending the police report subject to standard conditions and an expeditious investigation timeline.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties.

Suraj vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9237 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Shashank Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel, under the authority of Shri Shashank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 568 of 2023, under Sections-498-A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Soraon, District-Prayagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per prosecution version, the applicant who was married to the deceased in the year 2018, since the date of marriage her in-laws were constantly demanding additional dowry of 5,000,00/- and on non fulfillment of dowry the victim used to be assaulted and on the date of incident the victim was assaulted subjecting to stillbirth of her child and subsequently the victim was hospitalized where the doctors have referred her for Allahabad and on the way to Allahabad the victim died. The allegations made in the First Information Report are totally false and fabricated. The real facts are that the the victim was pregnant and was hospitalized by the family members of the applicant. On 06.10.2023 the deceased gave birth to a stillbirth child. The victim was discharged from the hospital on 08.10.2023 and she was taken by the applicant to his home. Thereafter, the informant and the brother of the deceased took the deceased to their home and where she died on 10.10.2023. In the inquest report no external injury has been found over the body of the deceased and the cause of death has been mentioned due to Cardic shock septic both lungs . Co-accused, mother in law, father in law and brother in law of the deceased have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the

¶8

applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of a coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in case of Udit Arya vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4560 of 2023), wherein under almost identical circumstances pre trial bail had been granted vide order dated 03.05.2023. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under aforesaid sections are not made out. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Suraj be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by hi, before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶16

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶17

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶18

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶19

The application stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 Deepak/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Sanju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Bali vs State of Up and 5 Others

Mukesh Das and 2 Others vs Shivpujan Das Chela Siya Ram Das

Govind vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Balak Soni and 3 Others vs State of U.P.

Nishu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another