SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Surajdeen And Anr vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 17 March, 2020


?Court No. – 54


Applicant :- Surajdeen And Anr

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar,Rahul Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, as well as, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 489 of 2019 under sections- 498A, 323, 504, 506, 201 of IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mau Aima, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of investigation.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the sister of O.P. No. 2 and the general allegations have been made against them. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are living separately from their son, since the date of marriage and they have falsely been implicated in this case. The applicants have no criminal history. They have apprehension of imminent arrest. If they are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

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

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not opposed the above aspect.

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 applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest of the applicants namely- Surajdeen and Smt. Dhanpatti Devi, involved in the aforesaid case, they 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:-

(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 him 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 him 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 :- 17.3.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2021 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