HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 656 of 2020
Applicant :- Ankit Bansal @ Titu And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Tiwari,Sandeep Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishnu Dayal Agarwal
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed today and the same is taken on record.
Sri S.P. Sharma has appeared on behalf of the applicant along with Sri Sandeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri Vishnu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are also present.
This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 332 of 2019, under section 498A, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Akrabad, District Aligarh, during pendency of investigation.
Vide order dated 17.1.2020, this Court had directed the parties to appear in person to show cause as to why criminal contempt be not drawn because in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 26002 of 2019, wherein prayer for quashing of the first information report was prayed, was refused and they were directed to appear before the court concerned to seek regular bail within 30 days.
Learned counsel for the applicant has reported that accused-applicant no. 4 has appeared in person today, while rest of the accused could not appear before this Court in compliance with this Court’s order because accused-applicant no. 2, who is father-in-law of the informant, is Admitted in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital as he is suffering from duodenal ulcer and the applicant nos. 1 and 3 are in attendance to look after the said patient, paper with respect to that have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that order dated 19.12.2019 also provided the relief of interim bail application to the accused-applicant no. 3, Anju but even that relief could not be availed because of the illness of the applicant no. 2. It is further argued that in F.I.R. a false allegation of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made against applicants that the said amount was being demanded as additional dowry and for non-fulfilment of the same, informant was harassed, tortured and was tried to be killed by setting a noose around her neck. It is further argued that no injury has been shown to have been caused to the informant. The marriage was performed about seven years ago and out of the wedlock two girl children are there and they are staying with the accused. The applicants have been falsely implicated. They have no criminal history. If released on anticipatory bail, they would cooperate in the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail and stated that informant was being tortured and because of which it was not possible for her to stay with the accused-applicants although she wanted to live with them.
Looking to the peculiar features in this case that this is a family dispute and there are chances of compromise as well in course of time, it is being considered proper to extend relief of anticipatory bail till the submission of police report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being no possibility of their fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, accused-applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Pawan Kumar, Smt. Anju and Anuj involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their 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.
(i) the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) the applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
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 certified 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 applicants.
The applicants are directed to produce a certified 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.
As regards applicant no. 1, taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant no. 1 Ankit Bansal @ Titu, who is husband of the informant, on anticipatory bail in this case.
The anticipatory bail application of the applicant Ankit Bansal @ Titu, is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 3.2.2020
A.P. Pandey
