Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52440 of 2019 Applicant :- Shripal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant- Shripal in Case Crime No. 334 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bilari, District- Moradabad with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to him.
I have perused the averments made in the first information report, the order by means of which the anticipatory bail application has been rejected by the court below as well as the material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant got married to the daughter of first informant in the year 2012 and the allegations of demand of dowry and consequent torture are absolutely false and fabricated. Therefore, the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled for anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in the first information report, it is stated that on 15.7.2019 the applicant run away with a girl of his village in respect of which an F.I.R. being Case Crime No.232 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Bilari has been registered by the father of the girl with the allegation of kidnapping his minor daughter. The applicant is absconding and the victim of Case Crime No.232 of 2019 has yet not been recovered. Therefore, under these circumstances it would not be conducive to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant unless he is to be arrested and his custodial interrogation is required not only in the present case but also for recovery of victim in Case Crime No.232 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the allegations made in the first information report and also looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the F.I.R., gravity of offence and the severity of punishment and the fact as advanced by the learned A.G.A., no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Vikas