High Court

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0050 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 304 of DP Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 06.11.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate, as counsel for the opposite party no. 2 when the case is listed next. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0050 of 2023, under sections 498-A,323,504,506 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated. He next added that the applicants are the family members and the relatives and they were never involved in committing any offence. He added there is no specific allegation against the applicants for committing any offence as is evident from the narration in the first information report. He submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2012(10) ADJ 464 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599. He further added that there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest the applicants and therefore,submission is that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicants are named in the first information report and they are involved in committing the offence and as such, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. learned AGA appearing for the State has supported the version of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that the applicants are not entitled for any relief. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicants-Mohd. Salim @ Saleem & Aisha @ Munni shall be released forthwith, in case of their arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two solvent 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 chargesheet 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter on 20.11.2024, as fresh. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 06.11.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicants were enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicants are not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Mohd. Salim @ Saleem and Aisha @ Munni till disposal of the trial subject to 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 the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 kkv/

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0050 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 304 of DP Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 06.11.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate, as counsel for the opposite party no. 2 when the case is listed next. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0050 of 2023, under sections 498-A,323,504,506 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated. He next added that the applicants are the family members and the relatives and they were never involved in committing any offence. He added there is no specific allegation against the applicants for committing any offence as is evident from the narration in the first information report. He submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2012(10) ADJ 464 and Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others Vs State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599. He further added that there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest the applicants and therefore,submission is that the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicants are named in the first information report and they are involved in committing the offence and as such, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. learned AGA appearing for the State has supported the version of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that the applicants are not entitled for any relief. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicants-Mohd. Salim @ Saleem & Aisha @ Munni shall be released forthwith, in case of their arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two solvent 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 chargesheet 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 concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter on 20.11.2024, as fresh. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits." From perusal of the order dated 06.11.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicants were enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicants are not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Mohd. Salim @ Saleem and Aisha @ Munni till disposal of the trial subject to 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 the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 kkv/