Allahabad High Court
Prayas @ Aasu vs State Of U.P. on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13133 of 2022
Applicant :- Prayas @ Aasu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Tyagi,Kapil Tyagi
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2020, under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 307 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station - Bahadurgarh, District - Hapur.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the first informant - Chhavi Tyagi married to the present applicant on 27.2.2020; in this marriage about rupees thirty lakhs were spent; the in-laws of the first informant were not happy with the gifts/articles presented in the marriage; and they began to demand rupees fifteen lakhs and an Innova Car. The first informant came to her parents house and and told everything to them; the family members of the first informant tried to counsel her in-laws but they did not relent. It is alleged in the FIR that she came to her in-laws alongwith her father and brother on 5.8.2021 on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan; after father and brother returned to their home, the in-laws of the first informant again picked up the matter of dowry and when she expressed her inability to fulfill the demands, the present applicant and his other family members assaulted her and also attempted to strangulate her by flinging a rope around her neck. It is also alleged therein that she somehow manage to disentangle herself and fled from their clutches; she dialed no. 112 and also dialed number 1091 and thereafter got her medically examined at Hapur.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case; allegations made in the FIR are false and frivolous; this FIR has arisen out of small domestic quarrels and bickerings gone out of proportion between husband and wife; though the incident as per allegation of FIR took place at Faridabad but this question remains unanswered why she got herself examined at Hapur; had there been any substance in the allegation she would have got herself examined on the date of incident itself at the nearest hospital; after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IIPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against present applicant dropping section 307 IPC as there was no genuine material to show that offence under Section 307 IPC is also made out against the applicant; later on, the basis of application moved by her father, a cognizance order has been passed in under section of 307 IPC; the medical examination report is fake and false.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State highlighting that in this case, medical examination shows marks of injury around her neck and it prima facie proves that an attempt to strangulate her was made by the applicant.
6. In this case this fact is undisputed that charge sheet has been submitted. The first informant places reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Shivam Vs. State of UP and others decided on 5.4.2021 to stress the point that it is bounden duty of the applicant to disclose whether he challenged the charge sheet. If averments in the application are not unambiguous, he may not be entitled for the discretionary relief.
7. I went through the judgment. The court has expressed its agreement with the view that in "appropriate cases". anticipatory relief can be granted even after filing of charge sheet and thereafter has proceeded to enumerate some instances which can be categorized as appropriate one.
8. In the instant case, serious objection has been raised questioning the genuineness of the medical report and taking of cognizance under section 190(c) of Cr.P.C. I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence the the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant, Prayas @ Aasu involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that 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;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;
(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.
9. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023/S.K.S.
