Allahabad High Court

Rajni Kant Dixit And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 December, 2022

Author:
Suresh Kumar Gupta

Bench:
Suresh Kumar Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 367 of 2020

Applicant :- Rajni Kant Dixit And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Dubey

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

This anticipatory bail application under
section 438
Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 344 of 2019, under sections- 498A,304B,323,306
IPC
& 3/4
D.P. Act
, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further submitted that the applicants are father in law and mother in law of the deceased respectively. Earlier the applicants were granted protection by this Court vide order dated 9.1.2020. The applicants have no concern regarding the alleged demand of dowry. The deceased died in her parental home (Mayka). It is also submitted that the husband of the deceased preferred anticipatory bail application before this Court which was rejected. Then he approached the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1781/2020 in which he was granted interim protection. After filing of charge-sheet against him, interim protection was extended with the direction that he shall cooperate with the trial and there is no need of any custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the applicants were never arrested and they fully cooperated with the investigation. But the Investigating Officer without collecting any cogent and credible evidence filed charge-sheet against the applicants. There is no need of custodial interrogation further.

The counsel for the applicants submits that however, no offence is made out against the applicants, hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.
In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I.
through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and they are ready to cooperate in the trial.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the above facts.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Aman Preet Singh
(Supra), the Court has observed as under:

"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under
Section 170
Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

11. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

In
Aman Preet Singh
(supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.

In the event of arrest, the applicants- Rajni Kant Dixit and Smt. Shashi Prabha Dixit involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A
of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under
Section 313
Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

Shravan