Dinesh Kumar Sadhwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. (A) No. 181 of 2016 Dinesh Kumar Sadhwani, S/o. Shri Moolchand Sadhwani, aged about 37 years, R/o. Near Satya Narayan Mandir, P.S. Gobara, Nawapara, Raipur, Revenue and Civil District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through - the Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant :- Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State :- Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For Objector :- Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 02/03/2016 1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No 1/2016 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under section 498(A), 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.

As per the prosecution case, the applicant was married to the complainant on 10.02.2008 and out of the said wedlock two children were born. It is the case of the prosecution, that the report was made by the complainant wife that she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry and she was severely beaten on 04.12.2015 and thereafter it was repeated on many occasions, thereby the offence is committed. 3.

Counsel for the applicant would submit that the report was made and the conciliation proceedings were drawn and initially on 15.01.2016 the complainant was agreed to joint her matrimonial home and however, without

assigning any reason after seven days she refused to go alongwith the applicant. He further submits that from last eight years no such report of demand of dowry was made and all of sudden a false allegation has been made against this applicant, therefore, the applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4.

Per contra, learned state counsel as also learned counsel for the objector opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and would submit that the victim was subjected to torture and she was severely beaten and also she was tied and beaten in front of her children; therefore, the applicant should not be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5.

Perused the statement of the complainant which shows that the applicant used to beat his wife and used to also abuse her. Taking into such allegation levelled against the husband/applicant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Santosh