SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 51

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 41630 of 2019

Applicant :- Raj Kumar And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Babita Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Sanyukta Singh learned A. G. A. for the State

Applicants have moved the present anticipatory bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 449 of 2019 u/s 498A, 323, 506, 376 SectionIPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act PS Khair District Aligarh.

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the anticipatory bail rejection order.

Contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are Jeth and Jethani of the wife; no specific role has been assigned to them; they have been implicated on the basis of general allegations made against them; the matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.

Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest of the applicants Raj Kumar and Smt. Chandrakanta involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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:-

(i) the applicants will join and participate in each and every aspect of “Investigation” and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency even with regard to “discovery of fact” if and when required so by the Investigating Agency or the concerned court;

(ii) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

iii) 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 office;

(iv) 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 or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/Investigating Officer/first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

Order Date :- 1.10.2019

SP

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation