Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14932 of 2021 Applicant :- Abhishek Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
(1) Heard Shri Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A as well as perused the record.
(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Abhishek Verma invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they has every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.12 of 2020, under Sections 307, 313, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur
(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions vide order dated 25.01.2021.
(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
(5) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is husband of opposite party No.2-Ragni. It is also submitted that co-accused father-in-law and mother-in-law have already been granted bail. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that allegation of offence punishable under Section 313 IPC is also levelled against the applicant, which shows that the abortion of his wife was due to beating by the applicant resultantly causing injury in her abdomen but as per first information report, she went to her parental house after the loss of fetus on 07.08.2019, while medical papers annexed with this application show that even after the date 07.08.2019 she was carrying child in her womb. Apart from this, there is no injury to any part of the body.
(6) Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA submitted that the injury was caused to fetus of Ragni before 07.08.2019 and child was lost only due to that injury though after the aforesaid date.
(7) Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 attracted my attention towards Statement of doctor in this regard. Apart from this allegation, there are also other serious allegations against the applicant-husband regarding additional demand of dowry and torture.
(8) Taking into account the severity of allegations, this Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.10.2021 Ashutosh Pandey