VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Sudhir Naagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(2.) Petitioners who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased are sought to be prosecuted for the offences under Ss. 323, 498A, 304B, IPC read with sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Before the charge sheet was filed, they were granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 7/10/2020. In the said order granting bail, this Court had observed that, after charge sheet is filed, it is open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for the Regular Bail before the Competent Court. After filing the charge sheet, when application for grant of anticipatory bail is filed, impugned order is passed based on the observation made by this Court, in the earlier order.

(3.) Merely because it was kept open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge sheet, the same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet. It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the same cause of action.