Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Aslam And Others vs State Of U.P. on 31 January, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12897 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Parvat Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vaibhav Kohli
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Kishan Gautam, holding brief of Mr. Parvat Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. None appears on behalf of the informant.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504,506, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3 & 4 The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
On 22.07.2021, while granting protection to the applicant no.3, who is married sister-in-law of the victim, the following order was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no point in claiming that any offence whatsoever was committed by the appellants. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellants and the story developed by the prosecution cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required. Applicant nos.1 and 2 are father- in- law and mother-in-law of the victim and applicant no.3 is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the victim and they have no concern with the offence in question.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicants prima facie appears to have some substance. The matter requires consideration after receiving response from learned AGA for the State.
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.1. He prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
Put up this case on 4th August, 2021 as fresh.
Till 4th August, 2021, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.3 who is the sister- in- law of the victim.
So far as applicant nos.1 and 2 are concerned, no doubt it is an admitted fact from the the perusal of the FIR that applicant nos.1 and 2 were involved in the offence in the question. Therefore, the argument advanced here are argument to be advanced at the stage of regular bail and cannot form the basis of anticipatory bail.
The applicant nos.1 and 2 are free to agitate their claim at the stage of regular bail before the appropriate court."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after passing the aforesaid order dated 22.07.2021, in-laws i.e. applicant nos.1 (Mohd. Aslam) and 2 (Tabassum Jahan) approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of filing S.L.P. No.5583 of 2021 in which vide order dated 06.08.2021 further proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. has been stayed. In view thereof, insofar as applicant nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the present anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.3 is married sister-in-law against whom vague and general allegations have been levelled in the FIR in order to exert pressure upon her. He further submits that parties have amicably settled the dispute and have arrived at settlement. Applicant no.3 has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant no.3 to demonstrate the falsity of the allegation made against her. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicant no.3 Bariera Sahar is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application with respect to applicant no.3 is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant no.3, Bariera Sahar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant 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.
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1.
6. The applicant 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 her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 31.1.2023
Rahul.
