Allahabad High Court
Sushil Chaudhary And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home ... on 2 March, 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. - 530 of 2023
Applicant :- Sushil Chaudhary And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The applicants have moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.376 of 2013 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Sitapur.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants who has filed affidavit of applicant No.2 today in court which is taken on record, and learned A.G.A. for the State who has opposed the bail.
It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicants are Jeth and Jethani of the deceased. They have been falsely implicated. They were living separately from the deceased, however, in the same house. Twice in the investigation, the applicants' complicity has not been found by the investigating officer and that is why, charge sheet was not filed against the applicants. During statement before the trial court, on an application under section 319 CrPC, the applicants have been summoned. They have fully cooperated in the investigation. They further undertake to cooperate in the trial.
It is further submitted that the allegation of demand of dowry is false as the applicant No.1 himself was the owner of Travera car.
Learned A.G.A. while opposing the application submits that the deceased died in unnatural circumstance within two months and seven days of the marriage. It is a heinous offence. He, however, could not dispute the contention raised by the applicants' counsel. "
Considering the fact that the applicants are Jeth and Jethani of the deceased, they have cooperated in the investigation and they further undertake to cooperate in the trial, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to their cooperation in the trial.
In view of the above. the accused applicants, in the event of arrest, shall be released on anticipatory bail by the trial court on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.
(i) The applicants 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 tamper with the evidence;
(ii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii)The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv)The applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023
kkb/
