Allahabad High Court
Lateef And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161709
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8722 of 2023
Applicant :- Lateef And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhakar Yadav
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Mr Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant is also present.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2023, under section 306 IPC, P.S. Karadhaam, District Kaushambi during the pendency oftrial.
3. As per allegation daughter of the informant was married with Shamim @ Guddu 15 years before and after the marriage she has been harassed by the applicant and other family members on account of dowry and it is also alleged that after some time she has been turned out of her matrimonial home. It is also alleged that on account of some settlement, daughter of the informant started living with her husband but her husband kept on committing marpeet with her and also abetted her for suicide. It is further alleged that on 24.4.2023 the husband and wife committed marpeet again and out of the said marpeet her daughter committed suicide. It is further alleged that daughter of the informant was being harassed by the applicants, her husband and other family members.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that applicants are Jeth and married nanad of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegations made against the aforesaid applicants are fake and general in nature. It is further submitted that they lived separately. It is further submitted that the main allegations are against the husband. It is further submitted, while inviting attention to the allegations made in the FIR, that even if the entire story of the prosecution is taken into consideration on its face value, the offence under Section 306 of IPC would not be attracted, as essential ingredients provided under Section 107 IPC for commission of such an offence are completely missing as nothing has been placed on record that the applicants hves abetted or instigated the deceased for commission of such an offence.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants Lateef and Smt Sanno involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(6) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) The applicants 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
RavindraKSingh
