Allahabad High Court
Jubair vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77964
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13810 of 2023
Applicant :- Jubair
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for the informant as well as perused the material available on record.
2. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant for protection in regard to Case Crime No.1048 of 2017, under Sections 354, 354 Ka, 376 D, 395, 294, 457 I.P.C., P.S.- Sardhana, District- Meerut.
3. As per FIR, it is alleged that marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized with Hanif under the Muslim Law on 17.10.2008. It is alleged that after marriage, in-laws of opposite party no.2 were not happy with the dowry given and allegedly used to taunt and tortured her for non fulfilling of demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant is cousin brother (mama's son) of the husband of opposite party no.2 and living separately from the house of opposite party no.2. The applicant had never harassed the opposite party no.2 and had never demanded dowry and made any cruelty upon her. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has no motive to commit such offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that there is a serious allegation against the applicant and the proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Lavlesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 (8) SCC 730, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.
7. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.
8. Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Applicant is advised to move regular bail application before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Krishna*
