Case Title:
Dr. Kartikeya Sharma & Ors vs State of U.P. & Anr.
Date of Order:
9th May, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Parties:
Petitioner: Dr. Kartikeya Sharma And 2 Others
Respondent: State of U.P. & Anr.
SUBJECT
This Criminal appeal was filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail in the High Court of U.P.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Section 3
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 41
- Section 41A
- Section 82
- Section 83
- Section 173 (2)
- Section 438
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 323
- Section 354
- Section 406
- Section 420
- Section 498A
- Section 504
- Section 506
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, the first informant was married to the applicant. Since the marriage, she has been subjected to mental and physical exploitation from her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law on the demand of an additional dowry of Rs. 2 crores.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, argued that both parties are educated and deny the allegations of harassment and cruelty.
- According to the Learned Counsel, the applicant was pressured by his wife to leave his parents and settle in Aligarh. When he refused to do so, the wife filed an FIR. The father-in-law and the mother-in-law are senior citizens who are subjected to diseases. Moreover, since the charges included offences with a maximum imprisonment of seven years, the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail until the trial concludes.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- On the other hand, The Learned Senior Advocate argued that the applicants who were accused in a legal matter purposefully did not get court documents that were provided to them. As a consequence, the court issued a directive authorizing the issuance of a criminal procedure against the accused applicants under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused petitioners, however, disregarded the court's procedures. The court then issued non-bailable warrants and deemed them to be proclaimed criminals. Hence, the applicants are ineligible for anticipatory bail or any other kind of relief because they disobeyed court orders and were declared criminals.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court considers the arguments put out by both sides and makes use of pertinent legal precedents. It mentions that the maximum sentence for the accused crimes is seven years in prison. The applicants' actions during the investigation and their cooperation are also taken into consideration by the court. The court gives applicants anticipatory bail up until the conclusion of the trial.
- The petitioner must attend in court on the scheduled days, refrain from influencing witnesses, and maintain good behaviour, among other requirements set forth by the court. The applicants must provide sureties and a personal bond. Without offering a judgement on the legality of the case, bail is granted.
CONCLUSION
Given the applicants' cooperation during the investigation and the potential punishment for the alleged offences, the court in this case granted anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants must appear in court and meet certain requirements. Although the judgement sets bail based on the evidence given, it does not rule on the validity of the case.
