Allahabad High Court
Smt. Amrita Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12743 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Amrita Gupta And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lal Mani Singh,Praveen Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Lal Mani Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Kulveer Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.688 of 2022, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station- Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, applicant no.2 was married to the informant as per Hindu Rites on 16.01.2017 and he alongwith other co-accused persons are said to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of dowry of Rs.10 lacs and even are stated to have induced an abortion to the fetus of the informant. Later on, the informant is stated to have given birth to a female child who was having heart ailment and the treatment of the said child is being undertaken by the father of the informant and not by her in-laws. The applicants and other co-accused persons are even stated to have tried to install cameras in the bedroom and other conspicuous places of the house which goes against the personal freedom of the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that all the allegations levelled in the FIR have been inflated and the FIR itself is delayed as it has been lodged on 07.09.2022. There are general allegations against the applicants and no allegations can be substantiated by any cogent evidence whatsoever. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no injury report to suggest that the applicants have committed any offence with the informant. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and has stated that the informant has been subjected to cruelty and the said cruelty goes to the extent that they are not taking care of their legally born child and applicant no.2 is having illicit relationship with several other women as he does not like the informant as she is a bit bulky and overweight, but he could not dispute the fact that there is no injury report to substantiate the prosecution story. Learned counsel has further stated that there are particular allegations against applicant no.1 with respect to the commissioning of offence under Section 313 IPC.
Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Smt. Amrita Gupta and Anuj Gupta be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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 or tamper with the evidence;
3. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
Ravi Kant
