In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh v. State of Bihar and another
Case Details
Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13996 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Smt. Megha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.795 of 2020, under Section 498-A, 354, 354-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail. On 21.09.2021, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants, has passed the following order:- "Connect with Anticipatory Bail Application No.681 of 2021. Implication of the applicant under the alleged offences appears to be on account of matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegations made are absolutely false. He has been implicated for ulterior motives and to pressurize him. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that applicant is the sister in-law of daughter of opposite party No. 2. He has next submitted that brother in-law and father in-law of daughter of opposite party No. 2 have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 681 of 2021 and 2218 of 2021 vide orders dated 18.1.2021 and 4.2.2021. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another., (2014) 8 SCC 272, before passing final order, the Court considers it appropriate to hear the opposite party no.2. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable within four weeks. List this case after two months. Till the next date of listing, in case of his arrest, the applicant, Smt. Megha, shall be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0795 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 354, 354A, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghazibad, on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police Station/court concerned with the following conditions- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation and will not be affected by this order. A copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this court shall also be produced before the S.S.P concerned by the applicant who shall ensure compliance of this order after due verification from official website of this court." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law. He further submits that the dispute is matrimonial in nature. 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. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have never misused the liberty as granted to them. He further submits that applicants undertake 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. He submits that the anticipatory bail application of co-accused persons Rajendra Kumar Yadav and Anuj Yadav have already been allowed on 17.01.2023 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Nos.2218 of 2021 and 681 of 2021. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. 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 entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (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 judgement of the Apex Court. In view of above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Smt. Megha involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:- 1.The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. 3. The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. 4. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court. 5. In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1. 6. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 7. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him/her/them in accordance with law. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.2.2023 A.N. Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad