Allahabad High Court
Sabana Parveen And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10918 of 2022
Applicant :- Sabana Parveen And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Srivastava,Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal,Vikas Singh
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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 applicants in Case Crime No.275 of 2022, registered under Section 306 I.P.C. at Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant no.1 is the wife of the deceased person and applicant nos. 2 & 3 are the brothers of applicant no.1. The deceased person is stated to have committed suicide as a result of the said cruelty subjected to him.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR itself is delayed by about 17 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no overt act assigned to the applicants of having abetted the deceased person to commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 I.P.C. and Section 306 I.P.C. do not stand fulfilled. The applicant no.1 was residing with applicant nos. 2 & 3 at her parental house as such they have nothing to do with the said offence.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is a different version to the present case being Case Crime No.381 of 2022 lodged by the applicant no.1 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the informant and other family members, in which the closure report has been filed. Per se the allegations have been found false. Learned counsel has stated that it does not amount to any kind of abetment of suicide to the applicant. The criminal history of applicant no.2 stands explained as they are petty offences. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicants had tormented the deceased person in such a way that he was forced to commit suicide in his own hand-loom factory, but could not dispute that there is no overt act assigned to the applicants.
9. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration the fact that there is no overt act assigned to the applicants of abetting the deceased person and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Sabana Parveen, Mohd. Imran Urf Sonu Builder and Irshad Ahmad Urf Raju Builder be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) 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 court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants 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 below 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 :- 3.5.2023
Vikas
