Allahabad High Court
Monu @ Shivanand vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149250
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4681 of 2023
Applicant :- Monu @ Shivanand
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Sahani,Awaneesha Kumar,Narendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.K.Ojha,Pooja Mishr A,Vinod Mishra
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Awaneesha Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.22 of 2023, registered under Section 306 I.P.C. at Police Station- Bara, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. It reveals from the perusal of F.I.R. that Anupama Bind moved an application before the police that she is having love affair with the deceased, Rameshwar Prasad and they wanted to marry but their family members were not ready for the same. Pursuant to the application, the police came into action and as per F.I.R., at the police station in the presence of the police, the marriage of the deceased and Anupama Bind was solemnized. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the police and relatives of the lady, Anupama Bind caused mental and physical pressure to the deceased and the marriage was solemnized forcefully in the premises of police station. When the deceased Rameshwar Prasad and Anupama Bind were coming back to home co-accused, Vivek also caused injuries to Rameshwar Prasad and threatened for life. The deceased was not satisfied with this marriage and also disclosed this fact to his family members and next day in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. the deceased, Rameshwar Prasad prepared a video clip wherein he named all the accused persons and committed suicide by jumping before the train. The investigation is going on. The video clip mentioned in the F.I.R., has not been made part of the case diary, however, the love affair was admitted by the learned State Counsel. The investigation is pending and no cogent evidence has been collected against the present accused regarding the alleged offence. How the deceased was provoked by the present accused is not clarified in the F.I.R.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated 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.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that applicant was the main accused person as he had got the said marriage solemnized by coercion as the engagement of the deceased had already solemnized and subsequent to it, as the marriage of sister of the applicant could not be solemnized with the cousin of the deceased person as he was a drunkard, the present marriage was executed by coercion. Learned counsel has stated that had the marriage been solemnized amicably, then what was the reason for getting it solemnized within the premises of police station. Learned counsel has stated that even the video clip indicates that it was the applicant who should be prosecuted.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no certificate as per the provision of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act taken up by the Investigating Officer. No ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are fulfilled in the case, as such applicant himself has been put to double jeopardy as his sister has been rendered widow and had to lead life of destitution and vagrancy.
9. 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 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.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Monu @ Shivanand be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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 the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted 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;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 26.7.2023
Vikas
