Allahabad High Court
Raj Narayan Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2701 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Narayan Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record of this case.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants in Case No. 447 of 2021 (State Vs. Ankur Singh and others), Case Crime No. 355 of 2019, under sections 307, 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 120 B IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Basti, District - Basti.
A First Information Report was lodged against the in-laws of the daughter of complainant Amar Singh. The allegation is that the in-laws of the alleged victim have put pressure on her to bring ten lakhs of rupees from her parents to run bhattha (brick-kiln). With the denial made by her to fulfill the demand, her in-laws got annoyed and they started to torture complainant's daughter mentally and physically. On 22.07.2019 at about 8:00 P.M. her husband abused, beat, terrorized and tortured her. Threatening to kill was given to her if dowry was not brought. The alleged victim sustained injuries in the incident. There is one more allegation that the accused persons were demanding money to return the Scorpio vehicle borrowed from the complainant.
Submission of the learned Senior Counsel Shri O.P. Singh assisted by Shri Prashant Kumar appearing for the applicants is that the allegations made in the FIR are false, fictitious, baseless and groundless. The allegations and accusations have been made in the FIR just to tarnish the image of the applicants. The FIR in question has been illegally lodged against the in-laws of the complainant's daughter because of a matrimonial dispute going on between the alleged victim and her husband, but the entire family has been roped in. Earlier, the matter was referred to the mediation centre and the mediation failed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in the majeed statement given by the alleged victim a new story has been cooked up against her husband that he loves another girl. It is also submitted that the husband of alleged victim namely Ankur Singh is working as P.O. in Punjab National Bank and he has already been granted bail in this case, a copy of the bail order dated 20.08.2019 is on page No. 47 to 48 of this application. A complaint has also been moved by the branch manager to the SHO of Police Station Sonha against the father and brother of the alleged victim for committing mar-pit with Ankur Singh and causing serious injuries to him outside the bank branch At Saltauwa on 22.07.2019 and next day on 23.07.2019 this false FIR against the applicants including co-accused Ankur Singh has been lodged by the complainant. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in this matter as the husband of the alleged victim namely Ankur Singh (co-accused of this matter) has already been granted bail. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that after the registration of the FIR, the police is running to apprehend the applicants. Their anticipatory bail application was rejected by the learned Session Court on 24.11.2021 (Annexure - 1). There is a definite apprehension that police may arrest them at any time.
Learned AGA appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that the applicants do not deserve the anticipatory bail. They submit that non-bailable warrant has been issued in this matter against the applicants. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8SCC 730 and State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain, (2008) 1 SSC 2013, it is submitted that once coercive process has been issued, no protection can be extended to the accused persons and their application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused persons and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, present application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 11.4.2022
LBY
