CASE TITLE: Kusum Devi And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 1907 of 2023]
DECIDED ON: 24.08.2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Krishan Pahal,J.
INTRODUCTION
On Thursday, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the significance of comprehending the interplay between reasoning and practical knowledge when utilizing legal precedents to determine cases with resemblant facts and conditions. The court underscored that a mechanical application of these principles is inappropriate. In line with this perspective, Justice Krishan Pahal dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail made by the mother of a deceased individual who had passed away by suicide in her residence.
FACTS
Reportedly, the spouse of the person providing information resided with his parents due to his father’s illness, and his earnings were directed to his father’s bank account. The informant was staying at her maternal residence when she was informed about her husband’s suicide. She received an alleged suicide note from her husband’s phone, which was being used by her father-in-law. Subsequently, she lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against her in-laws.
The legal representatives for the applicants argued that imprisonment would harm the reputation of the female defendants. They pointed out that one of the co-accused individuals had already been granted regular bail, and no direct witness was available in the ongoing case. Additionally, they highlighted the delay of one month in filing the FIR, and with the chargesheet submitted, there was minimal risk of evidence tampering. Hence, the counsel contended that the circumstances were appropriate for granting anticipatory bail.
The applicants drew support from the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kamlesh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., and Vinod Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., along with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Rajni Tripathi vs. State of U.P. In these cases, the courts determined that seeking anticipatory bail under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) remains valid even after the rejection of an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Furthermore, the applicants referred to the instance of Udit Arya vs. State of U.P, where the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail despite the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC. Conversely, the informant’s representative cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr., highlighting that anticipatory bail was not viable after the conclusion of proceedings under Section 82 (regarding a proclamation for an absconding person) and Section 83 (regarding the attachment of property of an absconding person).
CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The court noted that concerning the current applicants, their prior challenge to the chargesheet had not succeeded, whereas in the case of Kamlesh, the practice at the Rajasthan High Court involved challenging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) through a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition. This procedure allowed the consideration and decision of the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., even after challenging the F.I.R.
In a differentiation from the Vinod Kumar case, the court observed that the precedent established in that case, suggesting that the term ‘regular bail’ encompasses the provisions of Section 483 of the CrPC, did not directly apply to the circumstances of the present case.
“The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has also drawn upon the judgment in Vinod Kumar Sharma (above-mentioned), which suggests that the phrase ‘regular bail’ includes the provisions laid out in Section 438 Cr.P.C. This argument is valid and indeed, even after a decision for regular bail is granted, the option for anticipatory bail remains. However, this legal precedent does not pertain to the current situation. We must assess this case based on its individual merits. Furthermore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Rajni Tripathi (previously mentioned) has been built upon the aforementioned verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma (aforementioned). Therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the current circumstances.”
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC had concluded over six months ago and that the suicide had occurred within the applicants’ residence. Consequently, the exception established in the Udit Arya case would not be pertinent to the present scenario.
Lastly, the court determined that the applicants’ attempt to assert that the case was per incuriam (decided without considering relevant law) did not hold, and as a result, the request for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Mansi Malpani
