Allahabad High Court
Abdul Haris vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 January, 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. - 12277 of 2022
Applicant :- Abdul Haris
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shahabuddin
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0500 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 326-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad.
3. As per prosecution story, the informant's daughter Ariba Khusro has been married to the present applicant-Abdul Haris in 2016; her family expended more than Rs. 1 crore in marriage ceremony; just after 'nikah', the applicants have been pressuring Ariba Khusro to bring B.M.W. car, worth Rs. 90,00,000/- and other articles and that they have been harassing her continuously; once her mother-in-law tried to terminate her pregnancy as she was carrying a female foetus; the victim did not agree for the same, therefore, her-in-laws increased the torture against her; on 26.08.2018, Ariba's mother-in-law and sister-in-law-Hamza kicked on her stomach and this affected the child, who was later on born with defect in her eyes. On 27.06.2019; the informant was called by his 'samdhi' to settle the matrimonial dispute between the two sides between themselves; a meeting was arranged in a house of third person namely, Aslam at Moradabad; in this settlement meeting, the accused persons, the informant and his daughter participated; the accused persons persisted on their demand of B.M.W. car and Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash and when the father of Ariba declined to fulfill this demand, her mother-in-law Fariyal and husband Abdul Haris felt greatly annoyed and put a string on her neck and pulled it from both the sides; the informant's daughter fell down; suddenly her mother-in-law Fariyal took out a bottle containing acid and threw it on her and she sustained acid burns.
4. On the basis of the above FIR, the investigation commenced and the applicant has been chargesheeted (by filing a supplementary charge sheet no. 302A/2020) on 13.02.2021 under Sections 498A, 326A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is absolutely innocent; no incident of strangling by using a rope or string ever took place and there was no incident of throwing acid; the medical reports have been prepared under the influence of the informant's side; the present applicant is a resident of Uttarakhad while the case was registered in Moradabad. And it was the informant, a resident of Moradabad, who could have put undue influence on the local people whether the police or the doctor to prepare report in favour of the informant, enabling him to prepare a concocted case with sole aim to humiliate the accused persons and to wreck vengeance.The informant has cooked up a false story and has influenced the authorities to bring the matter under the graver section; the FIR too was prepared with legal mind as the informant himself is a practicing advocate at District Moradabad.
6. My attention has specifically being invited to the statement of the doctor namely, Pawan Kumar, Medical Officer, District Hospital Moradabad, who stated that the injury on injured Ariba appeared to have been caused by applying some acidic substance and not by throwing of acid. There was no sign of spots left by droplets falling of which are bound to occur if acid is thrown on some person. On the basis of this piece of statement of the doctor, it is vehemently argued that the informant's side, being local resident of District Moradabad, unduly influenced the authorities and manipulated the matter so as to bring it under the purview of Section 326-A IPC. It is also said that the matrimonial dispute has been blown out of proportion just to belittle the present applicant in public estimation and to humiliate him by getting him arrested to settle personal score.
7. The application for anticipatory bail is, though opposed by the learned AGA for the State, however, it is conceded that there is the statement of the doctor under Section 161 Cr.P.C. bringing the matter in doubtful category.
8. It is also stated that as the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant, hence, the anticipatory bail is now not maintainable. This point is countered by the applicant by placing before me the judgment of Supreme Court in Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri vs. State of U.P. and Another; Criminal Appeal Nos. 272-273 of 2021 decided on 05.03.2021. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has given an opinion that once anticipatory bail is granted it does not come to end by filing of chargesheet.
9. In my view, there is no legal bar in filing an anticipatory bail application in a case were chargesheet has been submitted. It may also be noted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by an order passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2207 of 2021, Abdul Haris vs. State of U.P. and Another vide order dated 06.04.2021 till submission of chargesheet. The applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him. The applicant has no criminal history and there appears no probability of him fleeing from justice. Prima facie indulgence of Court is necessary to prevent the misuse of process of law. In view of the facts and circumstances, I find it a fit case to give benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.
10. Let the applicant, Abdul Haris involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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.
11. 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.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant 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 :- 5.1.2023
#Vikram/-
