S.C. Agarwal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1552 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13093 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- S.C. Agarwal And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Pachauri,Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Shiv Bahadur Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Mr.Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the accused-applicants, Mr.Shiv Bahadur Singh and Mr.Rajesh Pachauri, learned counsels for the complainant and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and Mr. J.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. Accused-S.C.Agarwal is father-in-law of the deceased-Dr. Deepti Agarwal. Anita Agarwal is mother-in-law and Mr.Amit Agarwal is elder brother-in-law of the deceased whereas Mrs.Tulika Agarwal is wife of Mr.Amit Agarwal.

3. The deceased was married to Dr.Sumit Agarwal. The marriage took place on 03.11.2014. As per the the complaint given by the father of the deceased, at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry and gifts were given to Dr.Sumit Agarwal and other accused. Soon after marriage, the accused demanded more dowry as they were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and they were putting pressure on the deceased for bringing more cash/dowry from her parents. It is said that at the time of marriage, around Rs.1.5 crores were spent in making arrangements and dowry articles. Husband of the deceased and other accused named in the FIR, however, continued their demand of additional dowry, and they would often subject the deceased to cruelty for additional dowry. Several times, parents of the deceased tried to reason the accused but their behavior did not change.

4. In the year 2017, the accused named in the FIR severely assaulted the deceased for dowry demand. She was taken to the hospital and her injuries were examined and treatment was given to her. Accused-S.C. Agarwal assured the complainant that in future no such incident would take place and they would treat the deceased with respect. For this reason and looking at the future of the deceased, the complainant did not make any complaint.

5. It is stated that because of cruelty, twice the deceased aborted. The deceased and her husband adopted a daughter-Inaya. This fact also was not appreciated by the accused, and they started more cruelty towards the deceased. It is further said that the complainant has stopped giving more money to the accused and, therefore, the accused had threatened the deceased to be ready for the consequences. Further allegation was that 18-19 days before, the deceased was badly assaulted by the accused and she was threatened that if she informed this to her parents, she would meet similar treatment in future. On 3rd August informant was given information that the deceased had tried to commit suicide. She was taken to their own hospital by the accused but was not given proper treatment. When the complainant reached there, he took his daughter to Sarvodaya Hospital and during medical treatment, she died on 06.08.2020.

6. Husband of the deceased Sumit Agarwal has been enlarged on regular bail by the Supreme Court. This Court enlarged Mr.S.C. Agarwal, Smt. Anita Agarwal, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased on anticipatory bail vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.5457 of 2020 and 5460 of 2020.

7. Orders enlarging the accused-applicants on anticipatory bail were challenged before the Supreme Court by the complainant by filing Criminal Appeal No.872/873 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.4935-4936 of 2020 (Dr.Naresh Kumar Mangala Versus Smt.Anita Agarwal and Ors.)

8. The Supreme Court vide detailed judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 set aside the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused-applicants and directed the C.B.I. to conduct further investigation of Case Crime No.0623 of 2020 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra.

9. Final paragraph of the direction of the Supreme Court would read as under:-

"We accordingly allow the appeal and issue following directions:-

(i) The order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the applications for anticipatory bail by the respondents-accused shall stand set aside and the bail granted to them shall stand cancelled; and

(ii) The CBI is directed to conduct a further investigation of the case arising out of case crime No.0623 of 2020 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra dated 7 August 2020."

10. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2020, the C.B.I. undertook further investigation and has filed final/closure report of the case on 28.06.2021 exonerating the accused from any offence.

11. Mr.Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate submits that at this stage there are two reports before the Court; one submitted by the State Police against the accused-applicants finding their involvement in commission of the offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC whereas C.B.I. which undertook further investigation in pursuance to the direction issued by the Supreme Court, has exonerated them for any offence. It has been further submitted that trial court has taken cognizance on the police report. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage when in pursuance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the C.B.I. had investigated the offence and found no involvement of the accused-applicants in commission of the offence, it would be wholly unjust to send them to jail because as of today the accused are exonerated by the C.B.I.

12. On the other hand, Mr.Shiv Bahadur Singh and Mr.Rajesh Pachauri, learned counsels for the complainant, Mr.J.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. oppose the bail application and submit that if one reads the suicide note, which has been annexed with the bail application, it would clearly show that the accused-applicants did not treat the deceased properly and because of their behavior and cruelty, she had committed suicide. They have submitted that the trial court has already taken cognizance on the charge-sheet filed by the State Police, therefore, the accused-applicants are not to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. They must surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail.

13. Mr.Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also submitted that earlier the deceased herself has lodged the FIR regarding assault made to her, and thereafter, the accused undertook to behave properly with her and not subject the deceased to cruelty. Despite this undertaking, their cruel behavior towards the deceased did not stop, and the deceased ultimately committed suicide. It is further submitted that the C.B.I. has not conducted the investigation properly as directed by the Supreme Court.

14. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the accused-applicants, the complainant, the State and the C.B.I.

15. It was the complainant who went to the Supreme Court challenging the order granting anticipatory bail to the accused-applicants. The Supreme Court not only set aside the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail but also directed the C.B.I. to further investigate the offence. The Supreme Court trusted the C.B.I. for fair investigation. In compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 and in pursuance of the direction issued by the Supreme Court, C.B.I. undertook the investigation and found no involvement of the accused in commission of the offence.

16. Once the C.B.I. has undertaken the investigation in compliance of the direction of the Supreme Court and exonerated the accused of the commission of the offence, I find it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicants on anticipatory bail and, therefore, it is directed that the accused-applicants shall appear before the trial court within a period of 7 days and submit their bail bonds and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall surrender their passport(s) before the trial court and they will cooperate with the trial proceedings so that the trial gets concluded at the earliest.

(ii) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(iii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) The applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

(v) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

(vi) Trial Court may impose any other condition(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. Accordingly, the instant application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

Order Date :- 16.1.2023

prateek