Rameshwar Prasad Sahu And Others v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No. 621 of 2016
1. Rameshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late R. K. Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, Occupation - Govt. Servant, S. D. O. Forest State Of Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Uma Sahu W/o Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 59 Years, Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Korea Forest Division, Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh
3. Yashwant Sahu S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. 52/855 Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Dr. Puneet Seth S/o Late Arun Kumar Seth, Aged About 37 Years, Senior Consultant, Apolo B. S. R. Cancer Hospital, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh
5. Dr. Smt. Pushpanjali Sahu W/o Dr. Puneet Seth Aged About 33 Years, Cancer Hospital, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For applicants -Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Ms. Shobha Kashyap, G.A. For objector - Shri K.M. Ansari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 4/08/2016 1.
This application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 363/2016 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.
As per the prosecution case, a report was made by complainant Abha Sahu that she was married to Yashwant Sahu applicant No.3 on 15/02/2013. Thereafter, at that time enough dowry was given. Subsequently, in the year 2013 again demand was made of Rs.20 lakhs and she was subjected to torture. Subsequently, amount of Rs.18 lakhs was deposited in the account.
Thereafter, the complainant was blessed with a daughter. Abortion was caused at the behest of husband and the complainant was subjected to torture for demand of dowry.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants No.1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law. They are residing at Korea, Baikunthpur, applicant No.3 Yashwant Sahu husband has been residing at Pune wherein complainant was also residing and applicants No.4 and 5 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant who are residing separately at Bhilai, Durg and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that after the marriage since husband traced out certain photographs in the laptop and chating, she was advised not to carry out the same which led to dispute and instead false case has been filed against the applicants. He further referred to certain documents filed alongwith the petition which is also part of the case diary, also photograph and the email conversation and would submit that under these circumstances no case under Section 498 of IPC is made out and the applicants may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
4.
Learned State counsel and counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the applicants are influential persons and they have influenced the police and therefore infact police has not made correct investigation. He further referred to one document and would submit that at one time the complainant was assaulted by the husband on her abdomen by kick wherein abortion was caused and apart from this, applicants have committed domestic violence and therefore the applicants may not be given benefit of anticipatory bail. 5.
Perused the case diary, documents and the complaint. Case diary also contains conciliation proceeding wherein it appears that the marriage took place in the year 2013 and thereafter complainant was also blessed with a
child and the dispute arose in between the parties over some trivial issues. Considering the contents of the conciliation proceeding, documents and the statement, also taking into nature and background of the case, I am inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 6.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and 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/her 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. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri