Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1203 of 2022
Applicant :- Amit Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ripu Daman Shahi,Ajai Kishore Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent/State.
The present application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R. No.0153 of 2021, under Section 406, 420 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
This Court vide order dated 5.8.2022 passed the following order:-
"Heard Sri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant, Vinay Kumar Shahi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R. No.0153 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, a ring ceremony was solemnized between the daughter of the informant and the applicant and Rs.3 lakhs were given to the applicant by the informant in the said ceremony as dowry. The proposed date of marriage was fixed as 16.05.2021, but on account of additional demand of car, the applicant and his father are stated to have refused to get the marriage solemnized on the schedule date i.e. 16.05.2021. An FIR was lodged by the informant one day before the date of marriage i.e. 15.05.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The ring ceremony is organized only on the ceremonial basis and no dowry is given in it. In the said ceremony, only the exchange of rings has taken place between the proposed bride and groom. Learned counsel has further stated that there is enough evidence on record to suggest that no money has been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation failing which the State can move appropriate application for vacation of the interim protection.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Matter requires consideration.
Learned AGA is granted ttwo weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List this case on 21.09.2022 in the additional cause list.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant, as an interim measure, is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98". 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 the event of arrest, the accused-applicant- Amit Kumar shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required;
(ii) 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; and
(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application."
Learned A.G.A., at the outset, has submitted that during investigation the applicant was protected under Section 41 Cr.P.C. The charge-sheet has been filed under Section 406, 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that all the offences are punishable up to seven years.
Since, the charge sheet has been filed under sections in which the punishment is upto seven years, therefore, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and others, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5191 of 2021, Siddharth vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 and Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021, arrest of the present applicant may not be warranted.
Since, under the sections in which the charge sheet has been filed the punishment is upto seven years, therefore, it is expected from the learned court below to abide by the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil (supra), Siddharth (supra) and Aman Preet Singh (supra) as the law propounded by the Apex Court is the law of land and everyone is duty bound to follow such law in its letter and spirit. It is also observed that the present applicant shall also cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.
In such circumstances, there is no need to pass any order granting anticipatory bail as prima facie it appears that there is no apprehension of the arrest of the present applicant.
At this stage, applicant's counsel submits that he does not want to press this application for anticipatory bail and seeks liberty to file a regular bail application in view of law laid by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another.
In view of the above, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not pressed. It is provided that in case a regular bail application is filed within twenty days from today before the court below, the same be decided within the next fifteen days in view of the law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra).
It is provided that for the period of twenty days from today, the applicant shall not be taken into the custody in purported compliance of any warrant issued by the trial court.
Order Date :- 9.1.2023
Madhu
