Allahabad High Court
Navjyoti Gupta And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3874 of 2021
Applicant :- Navjyoti Gupta And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kapoor
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Akhilesh Dwivedi,learned counsel forthe informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants,Navjyoti Gupta, Nirmala, Hari Kishun Jaiswal, Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal, Ranjeeta Jaiswal and Banshidhar Jaiswal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2020, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Mugal Sarai, District- Chandauli, during pendency of trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case ofP. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198,this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicant, that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 90 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case ofAmrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290as well asjudgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no. 1,Navjyoti Gupta.
However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant was married to the informant on 12.12.2015. Her parents gave sufficient dowry in her marriage but her husband and other members of her matrimonial home were makingfurther demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs. There are general allegations of harassment against all the accused persons in the FIR. Informant is residing separately since the year 2016 and FIR has been lodged on 24.02.2020. The applicant's side have not initiated any legal proceedingsagainst her till date. Counsel forthe applicant has submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry have been made afterabout 5 years of the marriage which is not credible. The informant was unable to adjust in her matrimonial home and had left the family in the year 2016. Nowshe has lodged the FIR only to harass the applicants on the basis of general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to anyone. She hasalleged that she has beenthrown out of the house of her matrimonial home. Counsel forthe applicants hassubmitted that it is a case of absolutely false implication. They have no criminal history to theircredits.
Counsel for the informant, Sri Akhilesh Dwivedi, has submitted that the mediation has failed before the court below. Charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicants.
Regarding applicant nos. 2 to 6, namely,Nirmala, Hari Kishun Jaiswal, Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal, Ranjeeta Jaiswal and Banshidhar Jaiswal, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant nos. 2 to 6, shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. 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;
4. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.
5. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case ofSushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Rohit
