Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17519 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Kuldeep And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anupam Dubey
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 257 of 2016, under Sections 498A, 323, 307 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act., Police Station Kankerkheda, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that 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. It has further been submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. It was further submitted that accused-applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the first informant respectively and they have not committed any offence. It was submitted that the marriage of first informant with son of applicants was solemnized in the year 2015 and only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment of first informant have been levelled against the applicants and that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. It was further submitted that the injuries sustained by first informant are simple in nature and that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out. The allegations that applicants along with co-accused persons have tried to strangulate the first informant are thoroughly false and improbable. It was also submitted that both the applicants were residing separately from first informant and her husband and that applicant no. 2 has even transferred Rs. 7 lacs and 5 lacs on two occasions to the husband of first informant for their expenses. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co- operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that first informant has sustained six injuries and that there is evidence that applicants and co-accused persons have tried to strangulate the first informant.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicants- Smt. Kuldeep and Tirbhan involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicants shall make themself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Anand