The Court emphasized the importance of substantiated claims and evidence in cases involving dowry harassment and misuse of medication, and relied on expert reports to assess the mental condition of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2-informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Motihari Mahila PS Case No. 36 of 2019 dated 29.06.2019, instituted under Sections 341, 342, 323, 354, 354-A, 406, 328, 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Dowry Act’).

4. The allegation against the petitioner and others is that in the marriage of the informant with him on 01.05.2015, cash of rupees five lakhs, fridge and gadget worth rupees two lakh and also ornaments of gold and silver worth rupees five lakhs as also clothes worth rupees one lakh was given by the family of the informant, but when she went to the matrimonial home then she was tortured and that there was demand of a four-wheeler and on the informant’s father not being able to meet the demand, the accused had started mental and physical torture and also used to give various types of injections and medicines due to which her general health and mental condition also deteriorated. It is further stated that faced with the circumstances, the father of the informant had taken the informant and the petitioner to Ranchi and the Psychiatrist had opined that the informant does not suffer from any disease and should not be given any medication otherwise, it may affect her brain. It is further alleged that when the informant again went to the matrimonial home, the same medicines were given to her and she was tortured in various ways and that the husband of the sister of the petitioner finding her alone had entered into her room and tried to outrage her modesty, but on cry raised had fled away. Finally, it has been stated that in December, 2018, after snatching the belongings of the informant worth rupees five lakhs and mobile phone by the sister of the petitioner, she was ousted and since then she is living in her parents’ house. Finally, it has been stated that inspite of several efforts from the side of the informant’s family, the accused were not ready to keep her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the informant is not well, both mentally and physically. It was submitted that she has serious mental issues and that she is not in a position to enter into conjugal relationship. Learned counsel submitted that due to such condition and also non-cooperation from the side of the informant and her family members, the petitioner has filed Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 35 of 2019 on 19.01.2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari, for dissolution of marriage. It was submitted that after notice by publication in the daily newspaper was made on 29.06.2019, the present case has been instituted only to harass and extort money from the petitioner’s family. Learned counsel submitted that there is vague and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and his family members. It was contended that the Courts have now realized that there is misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Dowry Act.

6. Learned APP submitted that the present is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as the allegations are very correct of forcibly administering medicines which has adverse affect, both on the brain as well as the body and the allegations made appears to be correct without any exaggeration.

7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner and his family members had become greedy upon receiving good amount during marriage and had started demanding four wheeler, but the father of the informant not being in a position could not fulfill the same due to which the petitioner, who is a MBBS Doctor, knowing ful