Vinod and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11103 of 2023 Applicant :- Vinod And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Vinod and Monu @ Manish seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.372 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Baraut, District Baghpat.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that F.I.R. in the case was lodged five days after the incident without any plausible explanation regarding the delay. It is also submitted that though the victim / injured of this case has corroborated the story of the F.I.R. in her statement under Section 161 CrPC but the prosecution is unable to explain that when the burn injury was caused to the victim on 14.5.2023 in what circumstances she was not medically examined immediately after the incident but as a matter of fact she has been medically examined on 19.5.2023 i.e. five days after the incident and the injury report also reveals this fact that the injuries were about five days old. It is also submitted that the whole prosecution story is suspicious. It is a case of matrimonial dispute and on the basis of forged and fabricated injury report the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that the injured of the matter was firstly medically examined five days after the incident, though she is said to have been caused burn injury on 14.5.2023.

¶6I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7From a perusal of the record it reveals that for a demand of additional dowry the victim / injured of the case was continuously harassed and subjected to cruelty by her in-laws and ultimately on

14.5.2023 she was bitterly assaulted by her in-laws and her mother-in-law tried to strangulate her and the present applicants with intention to kill her poured petrol upon her and tried to set her ablaze. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that F.I.R. in the matter was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation regarding the delay. The victim / injured of this case has also been medically examined belatedly i.e. five days after the incident but this delay has also not been explained. The applicants have been cooperative with the investigation so far.

¶8In 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, likelihood 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.

¶9In 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.

¶10Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶11The application is allowed accordingly.

¶12In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they 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 concerned with the following conditions :- i. The applicants shall make themselves 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. iii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. v. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad