HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 1428 of 2020
Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dushyant Singh,M.C. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Saxena
Hon’ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Dushyant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Saxena, counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2 is based on total false and frivolous allegation; infact she was very much against the marriage and she left matrimonial home in August, 2019 and then applicant no. 1 moved an application u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the civil court, therefore, the alleged incident, which is stated to have take place on 3.11.2019 wherein the applicants belonging to same family went to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and assaulting her, does not appear to be probable; he has further argued that the applicant no. 1 is the husband, applicant no. 2 is Jeth, applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law, applicant no. 4 is uncle-in-law and applicant no. 5 is father in law; he has argued that medical report of opposite party no. 2 is procured one and all injuries are simple in nature. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. and counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the opposite party no. 2 was tortured for demand of dowry and she was turned out from her matrimonial home after ill-treating her. They further argued that that the applicant no. 2 is medical representative and he has administered medicine to opposite party no. 2 for aborting her child on account of which her child aborted. She was examined by the doctor on 4.10.2019 and it is noted that it was the case of incomplete abortion and by suction child was aborted; they further stated that there is nothing unusual to disbelieve the prosecution version to assault opposite party no. 2 in her parental home inasmuch as she sustained injuries.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and especially the applicant no. 1 is husband and applicant no. 2 is Jeth and applicant no. 5 is father-in-law, who are under bounden duty to protect life and liberty of the informant, I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail to applicants no. 1, 2 and 5. The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicants no. 1, 2 and 5 is rejected.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and on compassionate ground that the applicant no. 3 is a lady and applicant no. 4 is uncle-in-law (Chachiya Sasur) of opposite party no. 2, the applicants no. 3 and 4 are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
In the event of arrest of the applicants no. 3 and 4 namely Smt. Beena and Kalua involved in Case Crime No. 1175 of 2019, u/s 498A, 323, 313, 504 IPC and u/s 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bulandshahar, shall be released on anticipatory bail 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.
1) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2) that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
3) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants;
5) that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 or deciding the present bail application of the applicants;
6) that the applicants are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;
7) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
8) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
9) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
10) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.
In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, partly allowed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2020/Dhirendra/