HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 13
Case :- BAIL No. – 6928 of 2019
Applicant :- Priyanka Srivastava (Anticipatory Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma
Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.97 of 2019, registered on 8.3.2019, under Sections 498-A, Section304-B IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow.
The accused-applicant is elder sister-in-law of the deceased. She has been specifically named in the FIR. Before filing this application, the accused-applicant has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.15992 (MB) of 2019 challenging the FIR. This Court vide order dated 30.5.2019 has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition as under :-
“Heard Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The first information report has been lodged under Sections 498A and Section304 B IPC read with Section 3/Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow.
The defence of the petitioner is not satisfactory. However, since the petitioner is a lady, she is entitled for the benefit of Lal Kamlendra.
The writ petition is dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the courts below within one months from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati Anr Vs. State of U.P. reported in [2004 (57) ALR 290] as affirmed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in [2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)].
Till the aforesaid period of one month no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner.
It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as an implied direction of this Court to grant bail to the applicants and the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.”
Since this Court had already granted indulgence to the accused-applicant, there is no question of entertaining this anticipatory bail application.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 3.12.201