Suraj Vyavhar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No. 185 of 2019 Suraj Vyavhar S/o Late Maniram Vyavhar Aged About 29 Years R/o I-27, Forest Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For the Applicant :
Shri Navin Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State :
Ms. Madhunisha Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
ORDER
26.02.2019 1.
Heard on application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 8 of 2019, registered at Police Station - Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 498A/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is a government servant. He is alone in his family, his parents have expired and his sisters are married. Initially, the marriage of the applicant and the complainant was peaceful and
happy but the complainant herself started raising disputes in making unnecessary demands because of which, their married life became disturbed and then the complainant left her matrimonial home and lodged false FIR. The co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the Court below. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that looking to the statement given by the complainant she was being tortured by the applicant for demand of dowry. Hence, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
5.
Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary. 6.
The marriage of this applicant with complainant - Rashmi Jangde was performed on 24.1.2018. It is alleged that while residing in her matrimonial home she was subjected to cruel treatment by this applicant and other inlaws for demand of car and other articles in dowry because of which, she was compelled to left her matrimonial home.
7.
Considering the entire material present in the case-diary, and also keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Rajesh Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2017) 8 SCALE 313, I am of the opinion that the present is a fit case where the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
8.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the Officer arresting him on executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions: '(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.'
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi