Allahabad High Court
Jaddish ( Brother -In-Law-Jeth) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3041 of 2023
Applicant :- Jaddish ( Brother -In-Law-Jeth)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Crl. Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2023 is allowed.
Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Jaddish ( Brother -In-Law-Jeth) in Case Crime No.234 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 325, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Ushait, District ? Budaun.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and they has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation into the matter is going and and applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Prima facie it appears to be a matrimonial dispute. In the F.I.R. and also in the statement of the victim, no specific role of the incident has been assigned to the present applicant, who is said to be the brother-in-law (jeth) of the victim. It reveals from the perusal of the record that a criminal misc. writ petition no.15126 of 2022 was earlier filed by the present applicant alongwith other accused persons and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.1.2023. The investigation into the matter is going on. No criminal history of the applicant has been brought to the knowledge of the Court. It is said that applicant is cooperating in the investigation of the case. In the x-ray report of the injured / victim, fracture in upper and lower rami of right public bone and callus formation right leg and ankle and foot has been found by the doctor. However, since no specific role of assault has been assigned to the applicant, but at the same time, keeping in view the injury caused to the victim, no case for anticipatory bail at this stage is made out.
In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.
However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 particularly, the directions given for the offences provided in Category B of the head "Categories / Types of Offences."
It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023
ss
