Allahabad High Court
Smt Champa Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11153 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt Champa Devi And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants - Smt. Champa Devi, Bhoop Singh and Kanchan Singh, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 431 of 2014, under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Ijjatnagar, District - Bareilly, during pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants had approached this Court against the charge sheet by means of Application U/S 482 No. 20591 of 2015. While no interference was made by this Court, the applicants were granted 30 days' time to appear before the learned court below, vide order dated 24.11.2016. The applicants did not appear before the court below but challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.11.2016 before the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2020. The Supreme Court has, vide its judgment dated 10.02.2020, quashed the prosecution arising from allegation of offence under Section 493 IPC, however, it has not offered any interference with respect to the charge sheet under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. In such circumstances, the applicants have applied to this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. While, it may be true that applicant nos. 1 and 2 are more than 60 years of age, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the FIR is of the year 2013 and the matter remained pending for very long. Then, the applicants did not appear before the court below within the period of 30 days granted by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2016. Further, the challenge raised by the applicants before the Supreme Court did not succeed with respect to the offence alleged under Section 3 read with Section 4 of D.P. Act. It also does not appear that the applicants prayed for any protection or additional time to appear before the trial court. The Supreme Court has merely dismissed the challenge raised by the applicants with respect to the allegations of offence alleged under Section 3 read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.
6. In such circumstances, there does not appear to exist any good ground to offer any indulgence to the applicants or to exercise any discretion in their favour as the basic allegation of the engagement being called of is attributed to demand of dowry of Rs. 5 lacs made by the applicants along with Arun, the son of applicant nos. 1 and 2. That being the nature of allegation, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the applicants have been wholly falsely implicated. In any case, that submission would run contrary to the adjudication made by the Supreme Court. Insofar as prima facie merits are concerned, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court, it has to be assumed that, prima facie, the ingredients of offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of D.P. Act are present.
7. Accordingly, the present application is rejected, leaving it open to the applicants to approach the court below and apply for regular bail within a period of one month from today, which application, if filed, may be considered as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
Order Date :- 16.6.2021
AHA
