Rajnesh Babu v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13714 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajnesh Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Singh,Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,Nirmla Kumari,Prem Babu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Rajnesh Babu seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 669 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that it is a case of simple matrimonial dispute and only general allegations have been levelled against all the in-laws of the victim. It is also submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that a false allegation has been levelled in the F.I.R. regarding the second marriage of the applicant with one Lalita Devi, who in fact happens to be his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). It is also submitted that a case for maintenance has been filed by the informant which is pending before the court concerned. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that when the victim was ousted from her matrimonial house, she went back to her family but subsequently she returned. It is also submitted that earlier she had a daughter, namely, Pallavi and when she came back again to her husband, she gave birth to a son. The investigation of the case is going-on and the applicant is cooperating with the same. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that an attempt to murder has been made by the present applicant and his family members to the informant / injured of this case and in the injury report some injuries have been found upon the body of the victim but however, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the injuries shown in the medical report are simple in nature.

¶5I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6It reveals from the perusal of the record that the lady victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of additional dowry by her in-laws and an attempt was also made to kill her by strangulation. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on. Prima facie it appears to be a matrimonial dispute. Applicant is said to be cooperative in the investigation so far.

¶7In 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.

¶8In 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.

¶9Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶10The application is allowed accordingly.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(ii) The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶12In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 12.12.2023 safi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad