High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7061 of 2023 Applicant :- Vinod Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Gupta,Akash Kishan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant -Vinod Prajapati in Case Crime No.183 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Banda. 3. The prosecution story as culled out in the F.I.R. is that the daughter of the informant got married to the present accused applicant and a girl child was born from their wedlock. Subsequently, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for the demand of additional dowry by her in- laws and she was ousted from her matrimonial home and she was living with her parents. Despite that her in-laws continued to harass her and due to that, she committed suicide by administering some poisonous substance and died on 22.12.2022. F.I.R. was lodged on 23.02.2023 and investigation started which is going on. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the accused applicant that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is next submitted that prior to the present F.I.R., an F.I.R. under Section 498-A I.P.C. for cruelty and demand of dowry and an application of domestic violence act as well were moved by the deceased against the present accused applicant and her in-laws. It is further submitted that the suicide has been committed by the deceased in her parental house and not in the house of the applicant. It is next submitted that in the post mortem report, cause of death has not been ascertained and viscera report has been preserved and the report is still awaited. It is next submitted that no specific date, occasion or time has been mentioned in the F.I.R. as to when she was allegedly harassed by the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that only general role has been assigned to the present accused applicant. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to bring the matter within the purview of Section 306 I.P.C. are not made out from the perusal of the F.I.R. and also on the basis of that, no evidence has been collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation. It is next submitted that accused application has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case during the course of investigation and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. However, he could not dispute the factual position that the deceased has committed suicide in her parental house and as a matter of fact, she was living separately with accused applicant since 2019. 7. In the present case, it reveals that suicide has been committed by the deceased in her parental house and not in her matrimonial home. 8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 9. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter. 11. The application is allowed. 12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer 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 him/her 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. 13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Shivangi Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad