Smt. Anjum Aara And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No.
5 3 9 of 2015 1.
Smt. Anjum Aara W/o Mohd. Hadis, Aged about 54 years, 2.
Mohd. Hadis S/o late Mohd. Gazi, aged about 61 years, Both the applicants are R/o MIG-1/2575, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, Post Bhilai, P.S. Jamul, Tehsil Durg, Revenue and Civil District Durg (CG) Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh (District Magistrate Durg) through: Station House Officer, Mahila Thana Durg, Revenue and Civil District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant :
Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State :
Smt. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Order On Board /07/2015 The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime number i.e.05/2015, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Durg, District Durg for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case of the prosecution is that the applicants, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the prosecutrix, have harassed the prosecutrix, subjected her to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and cash of Rs.10 lakh. 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are old aged in-laws of the prosecutrix. The husband of the prosecutrix resided at Ahmedabad in connection with his job. The dispute has arisen because the prosecutirx is not prepared to live with her in-laws and only to exert pressure, this kind of report has been lodged.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
-2application by submitting that in the report, it has been stated that the prosecutrix is not allowed to go along with her husband and she was asked to bring Rs.10 lakh and thereafter, she was ousted from the matrimonial house. 5.
Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegation and further that there is no specific injury report, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 6.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/ with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions that:
(I) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) they 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, and (iii) they shall cooperate with the investigation as and when they are called.
Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane