Anwar Ansari vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1875 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 774 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Anwar Ansari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today, which is taken on record.

Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Anwar Ansari under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 504, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Iliya, District Chandauli, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-First, Chandauli vide order dated 30.11.2021.

Brief facts of the case are that the First Information Report dated 16.9.2021 has been lodged by father of the deceased against the applicant and four other named co-accused persons stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Shamina Begum was solemnized with the co-accused Sabir Ansari prior to two years of the incident. He has given Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash, ornaments, utensils and other gifts to the applicant and other co-accused persons. At the time of Nikah, the applicant and other co-accused persons demanded one motorcycle and colour TV., but some responsible persons of the society has settled the matter. After one or two days of the marriage, they demanded additional dowry and due to this reason, they started to commit marpeet with the daughter of the first informant and tortured her physically and mentally. She told the incident to the first informant through phone. After ten months of the marriage, out of this wedlock, one baby child was born. After that they repeatedly demanded additional dowry and tortured her. In the meantime, they solemnized second marriage of co-accused Sabir Ansari and thrown out his daughter from the house. After amicable settlement, his daughter again went to matrimonial house. On 17.2.2021 at 8.15 a.m. his daughter informed about the torture of the applicant and other co-accused persons. In the night of 17/18.2.2021 they committed murder of his daughter. After that he informed the police, but his information has not been written.

After lodging the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 19.2.2021 at 13.23 hours on the information of the first informant. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was also conducted on 19.2.2021 at 4.10 p.m. As per inquest as well as postmortem report, no external injury was found on the person of the deceased. Cause of death was cardio pulmonary arrest. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C., charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants and co-accused Sabir Ansari on 30.12.2021 and the Investigating Officer has exonerated three named co-accused persons. The applicant was arrested on 5.10.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. As per postmortem report, cause of death was cardio pulmonary arrest. It is further submitted that no viscera was preserved at the time of postmortem. General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been levelled against the applicant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the husband of the deceased, co-accused Sabir Ansari is in judicial custody. It is further submitted that on the basis of same set of allegation, Investigating Officer has exonerated three named co-accused persons.

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) Applicant is father-in-law of the deceased;

(b) cause of death was cardio pulmonary arrest;

(c) General allegation of demand of dowry and harassment has been levelled against the applicant;

(d) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present applicant;

(e) Investigating Officer has exonerated three named co-accused persons.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Let applicant, Anwar Ansari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

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 :- 4.5.2022

T. Sinha