IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Anand Shankar Pandey And 2 Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P And Another – Respondents
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.8536 of 2022
Decided on : 03-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 – Abetment of suicide – Criminal trial - Application moved seeking anticipatory bail – Whether application is maintainable – Held, Taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above - This court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant – Application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari and Mr. R.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. R.K.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, P.S.Kydganj, District-Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
3. As per the first information report lodged by the uncle of the deceased, namely, Vinod Kumar Dwivedi (informant) on 16.06.2022 at about 12:29 hrs, marriage of nephew of the informant, namely, Akash Kumar Dwivedi was solemnized with applicant no.3, namely, Arti Dwivedi on 27.02.2020, according to Hindu Rituals and Rites. After the marriage, the accused persons, namely, Anand Shankar Pandey (father-in-law), Smt. Pushpa Pandey (mother-in-law), Sweta Pandey (elder daughter) and Dhananjay Pandey (son-in-law) and Dablu Pandey s/o Girja Shankar Pandey, Pappu Mishra s/o Uma Shankar have physically, mentally and economically tortured the informant's nephew and abetted him to commit suicide, due to which, the deceased committed suicide on 16.06.2022 by jumping from the Yamuna Bridge.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. He further submits that the applicant nos. 1 to 3 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and wife of the deceased respectively and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The real fact is that the marriage of applicant no.3 was solemnized with informant's nephew on 27.07.2020, after marriage, the deceased and his family members demanded dowry from the applicants and on non-fulfilment of the aforesaid demand, the applicant alongwith his family members committed maarpeet with the applicant no.3. However, the applicant no.3 did not take any legal action and always compromised with the deceased and his family members as she wanted to live happily with them. Out of the wedlock, she was blessed with a child, who is about eight months old at the time of incident. On 12.06.2022, the deceased alongwith his family members committed maarpeet with the applicant no.3 and forced her to leave the house. Thereafter, the applicant no.3 after informing her father (applicant no.1) went to her parents' house and lodged a complaint against the deceased and his family members on 13.06.2022. On such complaint being lodged, the S.H.O. concerned called the deceased and his family members, but they did not turn up.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that earlier, the other co-accused persons had approached before this Court by means of filing Cri. Misc. Writ Petition No.8296 of 2022 (Shweta Pandey and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.) wherein vide order dated 30.06.2022, protection was given to the applicant till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the applicants had filed another Cri. Misc. Writ Petition No.9291 of 2022 (Anand Shankar Pandey and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 3others) and prayed for a similar relief as granted to the other co-accused persons. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2022 leaving it open for the petitioners therein to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law. He further submits that the applicants have no previous criminal history and have not been summoned or convicted in any case. The applicant nos.1&2 are old and infirm persons aged about 60 years. The applicants have never abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submits that there is no credible evidence against the applicants to show that there is abetment from the side of the applicants instigating the deceased to comm
Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 633
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730]
Mariano Anto Bruno and another vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1034
The court emphasized the need for a balance between individual liberty and societal interest in granting anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the accused's antece....
The court emphasized the delicate balance between personal liberty and societal interest in deciding anticipatory bail applications, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused'....
Anticipatory Bail Application has to be based on concrete facts and not vague or general allegations relatable to offence and why applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his ver....
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant was not only declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but proclamation of attachment of property was also iss....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.