Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112447
Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5753 of 2023
Applicant :- Anwar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Dixit,Jitendra Kumar,Keshav Hari Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants
Anwar and Jareena Begum seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Palimukimpur, District Aligarh.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their 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 upon the same set of evidence, some of the co-accused persons have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation. In the F.I.R. all the in-laws, 12 in number, were falsely implicated in the alleged offence. No specific role to any of the accused has been assigned in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that cause of death of the deceased as found in the post mortem is cardiopulmonary arrest as a result of septic shock. It is also submitted that administering of acid is not cause of death of the deceased and the viscera has been preserved. It is further submitted that co-accused Rashid alongwith his wife, the deceased, lived separately from the present applicants and the independent witnesses have corroborated this fact before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the present applicants are very old and infirm and are unable to even move. The investigation of the case is going on. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and
1
submitted that the main cause of the death of the deceased is administering the acid to her and this fact has been corroborated by Dr. Sachin Verma, who has conducted the posterm mortem of the deceased.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In this matter, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased was married with Rashid son of the present applicants. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment for want of additional dowry. On 31.12.2022 her in-laws including the present applicants administered acid to the deceased and took her to the hospital and subsequently she died. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started. During course of investigation charge was submitted against co- accused Rashid, husband of the deceased and names of other co- accused persons, except the present applicants, were exonerated by the Investigating Officer and investigation against the present applicants is going on.
7. In 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.
8. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused.
9. The application is rejected.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023 safi
2