Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while denying anticipatory bail to three persons (father-in-law, mother-in-law, and wife of the deceased) accused of abetting the suicide of a man.

The Court denied them the relief of anticipatory bail after noting that the applicants/accused were not available for interrogation and investigation and the proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated against them and non-bailable warrants issued against them.

To reach to this conclusion, the Court relied upon Apex Court’s rulings in the case of Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2022 (237) AIC 205 (SC) and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and another LL 2021 SC 579.

The case in brief

The case was registered against the applicants accused last year accusing them of torturing the deceased physically, mentally and economically and abetting him to commit suicide, due to which, the deceased committed suicide on June 16, 2022, by jumping from the Yamuna Bridge.

After being booked under Section 306 IPC, they moved to the High Court seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motives.

In fact, it was submitted that applicant no. 3 (wife of the deceased) was being tortured by the family of the deceased in connection with their demand for dowry, and she was forced to leave her matrimonial house.

It was further argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicants to show that there is abetment from the side of the applicants instigating the deceased to commit suicide.

On the other hand, the A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant argued that the Investigating Officer has checked the call details of the deceased Akash, collected the suicide note, recorded the statements of the independent witness, which go to show the involvement of the applicants in the present case.

It was also submitted that from the suicide note, it is clear that applicants no.1 &2 have been held responsible for harassing the deceased to such an extent that they did not permit the deceased to meet his child, which amounts to abetment.

Lastly, it was submitted as per the report of S.S.P., Prayagraj, the court below has issued Non-bailable Warrants and initiated the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the applicants, which goes to show that the applicants are not cooperating in the and thus, they should not be granted bail.

Taking into account the submissions of the Counsels for both the parties and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court refused to grant them anticipatory bail by observing thus:

“…looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation as well as reasons mentioned above, this court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicant”

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Niraj Kumar Dwivedi, Adya Prasad Tewari, Pradip Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma

Case title - Anand Shankar Pandey And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P And Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8536 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 21

Click Here To Read/Download Order