The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the specific allegations and individual circumstances of the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 05/2022, Police Station Mahila Thana, district Bikaner for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and no specific averment has been made in the complaint as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the complainant has alleged that she received injuries on her back whereas, no injury report was prepared at the relevant time. He further submits that specific allegation has been levelled against the husband and similarly situated co-accused i.e. sister-in-law of the complainant has already been granted bail by this Court. It is also argued that both the petitioners are in their old age and not keeping good health, therefore, the petitioners maybe enlarged on anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the order of Delhi High Court in the case of K. Surajit Kaur Chopra v. N.C.T. of Delhi, order of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Tammena Kaleen & Ors. v. State of A.P., order of Rajasthan High Court in case of Vinita Saini v. State of Raj., Anil prakash Goyal v. State of Raj., Kartar v. State of Raj, Kanta Devi v. State of Raj. and Rajesh Chander Bhardwaj v. N.C.T. of Delhi.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that in the FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., specific allegation has been levelled against the husband as well as present petitioners with regard to harassment and demand of dowry. It is argued that on 22.07.2021, the complainant agreed to reside at her matrimonial house on assurance that she will not be harassed in future. However, on the instigation of the petitioners, the husband started beating the complainant and turned her out of house. Further the dowry articles have also not been handed over to the complainant, therefore, the bail application may be rejected.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. On perusal of the FIR filed by the complainant as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that right after marriage, the husband and present petitioners started harassing the complainant mentally and physically demanding more dowry. It is also stated by the complainant that the petitioners have also wrongfully retained the dowry articles and turned her out of the in-laws house. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner No. 2 Shiv Ratan Bagadia, however, looking to the fact that petitioner no. 1 is an old lady and not keeping good health, she is enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is partly allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of petitioner No. 1 Mridu Bagadia W/o Shiv Ratan Bagadia in connection with FIR No. 05/2022 P.S. Mahila Thana, Bikaner, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner 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 any police officer; and

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

7. So far as the petitioner no. 2 Shiv Ratan Bagadia is concerned, who is father-in-law of the complainant, being an eldest person and head of the family w