Manjeet Singh And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. (A) No. 385 of 2016
1. Manjeet Singh S/o. Late Raghuveer Singh, aged about 66 years, R/o. Block C-3, flat No. 403, Paras Heritage Building Hoshangabad Raod, Bhopal ( M.P.)
2. Nirmal Jeet Kaur W/o. Manjit Singh, Aged about 61 years, R/o. Block C-3, flat No. 403, Paras Heritage Building Hoshangabad Raod, Bhopal ( M.P.) ---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant :- Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State :- Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 22/04/2016 1.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 84 of 2016 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under section 498(A) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants have preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
2.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant Taranjeet Kaur was married to Supreet Singh in the year 2008 and thereafter, she joined her matrimonial home. Initially, in the year 2008 a demand of Rs, 40,000/- was made which was paid and subsequently her husband was posted at
Mandleshwar, however, she was living along with these applicants and the husband used to torture the complainant. Thereafter, she started living along with her husband in 2009 at Bhilai, and whenever the applicants used to call, her husband used to torture and ultimately the demand of Rs. 35,00,000/- was made; thereby, the offence has been committed. 3.
Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the father -in-law and mother-in-law and they were residing at Bhopal. He further submits that according to the statement of the complainant she was residing separately from 2009, therefore, false allegations have been made against the applicants and the application for restitution of conjugal rights have also been filed by the wife and the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. was also filed by the wife against the husband. He further submits that the applicants have not committed any offence and they may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.
4.
Per contra, State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5.
Perusal of the report and the statement of the complainant and the documents of the conciliation would show that the applicants were living separately from 2009. The written complaint was made on 01.10.2015 which was registered on 27.02.2016; considering all the documents that the allegations have been levelled against the applicants are general in nature and considering that the applicants were living separately from 2009, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. 6.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 7.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail by the officer arresting them on executing a personal bond in sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicants shall also abide by the following conditions:- (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants 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;
(iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Santosh