Category Archives: Anticipatory bail

10 CRORES for AB ! Not judicial discretion ! Onerous condition of 10 crores set aside by Supreme court !!

Image result for supreme court of india images

Supreme Court of India

Avinash Arora And Ors. vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Anr. on 13 April, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 CriLJ 4674, JT 2000 (7) SC 501

Bench: G Pattanaik, U Banerjee

JUDGMENT

  1. Leave granted.
  2. The appellants have been alleged to have committed offence under Sections 420, 406, 468, 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. On an application being filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail, subject to deposit Rs. 10 crores. The appellants did avail of the order by issuing a cheque of Rs. 10 crores from the IFCI ‘No Lien Account’. The earlier order was, however, modified requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 crores from his own account. It is this order which is now being assailed before us. Mr. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that requiring to deposit Rs. 10 crores itself is an unjust order and cannot be held to be proper exercise of discretion by the Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438. Ms. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the State as well as the learned Counsel appearing for IFCI contend that the Court ought not to have exercised his discretion under Section 438, in view of the nature of accusation. But the Court having done so by requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 crores, the same need not be interfered with. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Court committed error in passing the conditional order of depositing Rs. 10 crores for grant of anticipatory bail as in our view, this cannot be held to be an exercise of judicial discretion. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned direction and remit the matter to the High Court for re-disposal of the petition filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, in accordance with law.
  3. The appeals are disposed of.

498a, 406, 34 proceedings NOT to be become recovery proceedings !! BAIL GRANTED to Husband, Delhi HC

Pathetic case where an employed wife, earning almost as much as husband, living comfortably within the matrimonial home (meaning NO rent), NOT spending a dime on electricity or water and ALSO getting rs 4000 maintenance from husband, FILES 498A etc on husband and co and tries to get him arrested !!

If all of you are trying to blame this politician or that, please read the DATE OF THIS CASE !!!! and that is is from the DELHI HC !!!

Delhi High Court

Rajesh Chander Bhardwaj vs State on 19 July, 2005

Equivalent citations: 125 (2005) DLT 710, I (2006) DMC 60, 2005 (83) DRJ 295

Author: P Nandrajog

Bench: P Nandrajog

JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

  1. Petitioner No. 1 was married to Ms. Snehlata Bhardwaj. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.
  2. The marriage was not too happy. FIR in question has been registered on the complaint made by the wife alleging dowry harassment at the hands of her husband.
  3. Two children have been born to the petitioner and the complainant. The children are with the complainant.
  4. It is not in dispute that the complainant is residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate part thereof. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is paying Rs. 4000 p.m. to the complainant towards maintenance for the two children. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is not spending any amount towards water and electricity consumed by her as also on the maintenance of the portion of the house in her possession.
  5. Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,500 p.m. Complainant is earning Rs. 9800 p.m.
  6. I have perused the FIR which is the usual story of an unhappy marriage. Usual allegations against torture and mental harassment are set out.
  7. Proceedings under Section 498A/406/34 IPC are not to be converted into recovery proceedings. However, it is the desire of a Court to try and ensure that matrimonial disputes are resolved. Attempts were made in the present case in this direction, but unfortunately have failed.
  8. Considering the fact that the complainant is still residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate portion thereof and the fact that she and her children are otherwise being provided with maintenance by the petitioner No. 1, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail as prayed for. It has to be additionally noted that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigating officer during enquiry. Since 6.2.2004 petitioners are under interim protection.
  9. Petition stands disposed of with the direction that in the event of arrest, on petitioners furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, petitioner would be released on bail in FIR No. 39/2004 P.S. Narela.
  10. It would be a condition of the present order that the petitioners would join the investigation as and when required.
  11. Needless to state that the anticipatory bail granted would be coterminous with the decision on the application for regular bail, if any, required to be filed by the petitioners, should a challan be presented against them.

Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender etc for ipc 498a accused. Wife stayed just 12 days !

Bail with tough conditions, passport surrender, prior permission needed to travel outside India, rights to police to further apply for custodial interrogation etc etc for 498a accused husband. Court has taken note of the fact that the case is about alleged events in Bangalore where wife stayed just 12 days !

This wife who stayed only 12 days in place of allegation seems to have ALSO ROPED IN THE UNCLE IN LAW !!

Gujarat High Court

Praveenkumar Udaypratap Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2019

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

R/CR.MA/24293/2018

ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24293 of 2018

PRAVEENKUMAR UDAYPRATAP SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT


Appearance:
ADITYA A CHOKSI(7835) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 05/02/2019

ORAL ORDER

  1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant­accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I- 83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 503, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.
  3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition R/CR.MA/24293/2018 ORDER of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
  4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and pointed out from the investigation papers that the amount as stated in the FIR is transferred in the bank account of the applicant. She further contended that there is specific allegation in the FIR about the torture given by the applicant at Bengalore and, therefore, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.
  5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record including investigation papers and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
  6. This Court has considered the following aspects, (a) FIR is filed for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged incident, which has occurred at Bengalore; (b) it is not in dispute that the complainant had stayed for 12 days only at Bengalore; (c) while granting anticipatory bail to the uncle­in­law i.e. the co­accused, this Court has observed in the order dated 24.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.22364/2018 that “attention is drawn to the allegations in the FIR itself where it is coming out that the expenditure of marriage, which took place at Uttar Pradesh, was footed by the family of the applicant and the incident of settling the accounts thereafter“. Thus from the said observation made by this Court, the contention of learned advocate for the applicant about the transfer of the money in the account of the present applicant or parent is supported by the said observation. Therefore in view of the above facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
  7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.
  8. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I-83/2018 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/­ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 08.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;
  9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
  10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
  11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 case though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

//however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.

5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.///

**

Delhi High Court

Lalit Singh Negi vs State on 17 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2018

BAIL APPLN. 2478/2016

LALIT SINGH NEGI ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Gurmehar Singh Sistani and Mr Samit Khosla
with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
SI Satish Kumar, PS Ambedkar Nagar.
Mr Vinod Dubey, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

17.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

  1. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.445/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar.
  2. 2. Parties were referred to Mediation; however, no settlement could be arrived at. Petitioner was granted interim protection on 02.12.2016 subject to joining investigation.
  3. 3. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner did join investigation, as and when he was called upon to do so.
  4. 4. On 06.09.2017, this Court had recorded the contention of the complainant that she has received part of jewellery from the petitioner in the Police Station on 15.07.2017 and also a demand draft of Rs.70,000/-, however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.
  5. 5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO, on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO.
  6. 6. The petitioner shall not do anything, which shall either prejudice the investigation or any of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation, as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.
  7. 7. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
  8. 8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 17, 2018/’Sn’

#accused #Husband gets #anticipatory #bail even though he did #NOT #settle in #ipc498a #ipc406 case !! #DelhiHC

Delhi High Court

Amardeep Malhotra vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 1 May, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 01.05.2018

BAIL APPLN. 1438/2017

AMARDEEP MALHOTRA ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Akshai Malik, Addl. PP for the
State with SI Manju
Mr. Anupam Dwivedi, Adv. for R-2
with R-2 in person.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

01.05.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

  1. 1. Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as counsel for complainant inform that the settlement could not be arrived at before the mediator. The statement is taken on record.
  2. 2. Learned Addl. PP informs that the #chargesheet has been #filed and on 12.04.2018 #cognizance has already been taken. Learned Addl. PP further informs that the petitioner did join the investigation as and when he was directed to do so.
  3. 3. The petitioner #seeks #anticipatory #bail in case FIR No. 517/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station Janak Puri, New Delhi.
  4. 4. In the event of arrest, the #petitioner shall be #released on #bail by the arresting officer/IO/SHO concerned subject to petitioner’s furnishing a bail #bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one #surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/IO/SHO concerned.
  5. 5. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MAY 01, 2018/’rs’