In Uday Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan passed a 5-page long order dated August 8, 2025 setting aside the 2-page long order dated April 4, 2025 by Justice Satyavrat Verma of Patna High Court in Uday Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025). Justice Verma had rejected the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner who apprehend his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Supreme Court's order arose from appeal which arose out of crime registered pursuant to FIR No.36 of 2023 dated August 2, 2023 lodged with Police Station Sub Division Sadar, District Aurangabad, Bihar. Apprehending arrest in connection with the said crime, the appellant had preferred anticipatory bail petition before the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Aurangabad which was rejected by order dated November 3, 2023. The appellant had preferred another anticipatory bail application before the same court, which was again rejected by order dated November 16, 2024. Thereafter, the appellant sought anticipatory bail from the High Court, which was also rejected. By order dated May 26, 2025, while issuing notice, Supreme Court had granted interim protection in favour of the appellant. The Court observed: "The appellant is seeking relief on the principle of parity since his wife and daughter have been granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, he submitted that the interim protection granted by this Court vide interim order dated 26.05.2025 may be made absolute, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court....Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail claimed....We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 04.04.2025."
In Uday Pratap Singh & Ors.vs. The State of Bihar (2024) Justice Verma's 3-page long order dated May 6, 2024, had dismissed the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. The other petitioners were Pushpa Singh and Priya Kumari @ Priya. The order recorded that notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was issued to Uday Pratap Singh, the petitioner no. 1, based on which, he appeared before the police but then he "tore the notice in presence of the investigating officer for which a case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C." was instituted.
It also recorded that Pushpa Singh and Priya Kumari, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. It was two married sister-in-laws were granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by order dated May 6, 2024 in Neha Singh @ Neha & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 83934 of 2023). It was also submitted that privilege of anticipatory bail was granted to the married sister-in-laws on merit. Seeking parity, the counsel submitted that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 be also granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Neha Singh and Divya Singh, the petitioners who were granted anticipatory bail, had submitted that the informant had falsely implicated them in order to coerce their brother into submission. Although the informant alleged that on alarm, neighbours came, but then name of the neighbours was not disclosed in the FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
Justice Verma's 3-page long order noted that the APP of the State and the counsel appearing on behalf of the informant were not in a position to rebut the submission by the petitioners' counsel that the name of the neighbours was not disclosed in the FIR and petitioners were married sister-in-laws and resides separately.
No comments:
Post a Comment