1. The instant application is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Jetpur Police station, CR No. I - 148/2011 regarding offences punishable under sections 323, 498(A), 406, 420, 504, 506(2), 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Mr.
N.R. Shukla, learned advocate for the applicant, at the out set submitted that the marriage life of the applicant with the complainant is about three years. It is submitted that in the instant matter, the complaint was filed by complainant before Magisterial Court and was sent to police for investigation. It is submitted that allegations regarding previous marriage is false in the sense that in previous marriage, the parents of the complainant-lady had remained present and even the parents of the complainant had attended the marriage of the applicant's father 40 years back. It is submitted that the previous marriage of the applicant was resulted into customary divorce. Mr. Shukla tendered for perusal the medical papers showing that due care was taken by the husband of his wife to see that she conceives child. It is further submitted that all the articles belonging to complainant were returned back drawing panchnana.
3. Mr.
R.C.Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent-state, opposed this application and submitted that serious allegations are leveled by the wife against her husband and her other in-laws. My attention was drawn to certain observations made by the Sessions Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and submitted that even the custody of wife was required to be taken by search warrant.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, so also considering the averments made by the complainant in her complainant and further considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact that other in-laws came to be released on bail by this Court, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.
5. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR No.I-148 of 2011 with Jetpur Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 06.07.2012 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:
[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
[e] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately [f] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
7. For modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions herein above, the applicant/s will be at liberty to approach the concerned Court and such Court shall decide the application for modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions of this order in accordance with law.
8. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
9. Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
10. Direct service is permitted.
[J.C.UPADHYAY, J.] cmj/ Top