Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
HARJYOT SINGH MALHOTRA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5138 of 2024)
Decided On : 29-07-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85 and 3(5)] – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – -Anticipatory bail application – Dowry offence – Marriage was solemnized in year 2015 – Earlier complaint was withdrawn by complainant, stating that talks for compromise inter-se the parties have failed – Having regard to facts and circumstances of case, appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail – Impugned order set aside and anticipatory bail granted to appellant. (Paras 2, 3, 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
Appellant applied for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 3841 of 2018, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Findings of Court:
Observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and would not be construed as findings and observations on the merits of the case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, Harjyot Singh Malhotra, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 3841 of 2018, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”, for short] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [“1961 Act”, for short.].
3. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2015. Earlier complaint was withdrawn by the complainant, stating that talks for compromise inter-se the parties have failed.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the appellant, Harjyot Singh Malhotra, has made out a case for anticipatory bail. We, accordingly, accept the present appeal and direct that in the event of the appellant, Harjyot Singh Malhotra, being arrested in connection with Complaint Case No. 3841 of 2018, instituted under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307, 379, 494, 406 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act, he shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
The appellant, Harjyot Singh Malhotra, in addition, shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Recording the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
We clarify that the observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal and would not be construed as findings and observations on the merits of the case.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The court determines that allegations of dowry demand do not justify custodial interrogation at the stage of anticipatory bail consideration.
Grant of anticipatory bail - matter is being settled between the husband, wife and her in-laws, as such, the present applicants be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 when allegations do not warrant preemptive detention, provided conditions to protect ongoing investigations are set.
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when accused face potential false implications, especially in domestic disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
