Allahabad High Court
Anuj Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3053 of 2022
Applicant :- Anuj Kumar Agrawal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra,Anant Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Bilas Yadav
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Ram Bilas Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.
The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Anuj Kumar Agrawal in Case Crime No. 0258 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Gorakhpur after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur vide order dated 14.2.2022.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 22.11.2021 has been lodged by the victim against the applicant, father-in-law, mother-in-law of the victim and two unknown persons stating therein that marriage of the victim was solemnized on 12.7.2021 with the applicant, but the applicant and other co-accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage. When she reached matrimonial house after two days of the marriage, they started to harass the victim and misbehaved with her. The applicant did not spend time with her and in the night he committed unnatural offence with the victim, but she could not tell the aforesaid fact to anybody. The victim has told the aforesaid incident to her mother. On 2.8.2021, when father of the victim went to her matrimonial house to reconcile the matter, applicant and other co-accused persons committed marpeet with him and abused by using filthy language. They told him that it the victim wants to live in the house, then she has to compromise with the situation. They also told to take the victim with him until Rs. 5,00,000/- is arranged. On 17.10.2021 the applicant and other co-accused persons forcibly tried to get the sign of the victim on the divorce paper and when she denied to sign it, they abused the victim and her father and threatened with dire consequences.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the marriage of the applicant with the victim was solemnized on 2.8.2021 and next date of incident is 17.10.2021. As per allegation, applicant and other co-accused persons forcibly tried to get sign of the victim on the divorce paper. There is no mention of date and time of any other incident. First information report has been lodged after about 2 months and 15 days of the marriage. There is no medical evidence on record. The applicant is no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he is not convicted in any cognizable offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, where it was held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegation of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
Learned A. G. A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
In case of arrest, the applicant, Anuj Kumar Agrawal is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;
(ii) 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 such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and if has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned/Court concerned;
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;
(v) 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.
The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.
A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicant, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
HR
