The ingredients of the offence under Section 506 II of the IPC require that the accused must have intended to cause alarm to the complainant.

K. Sharma, J.

1. Arguments heard.

Case Diary of Crime No. 117/99 registered at Police Station Seoni, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 II of the IPC, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, perused.

2. The prayer shows that barring Section 506 II of the IPC, all other offences are bailable. It is unfortunate that for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 II of the IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused has to remain in jail, in absence of an order of bail, from 13.3.1999. The petitioner had moved this application for grant of bail as his application for release has been rejected by the learned trial Judge and, thereafter, the application was rejected by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge on 17.3.1999. The repeat prayer has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13.4.1999 simply on the ground that the earlier application was rejected on merits and there were no changed circumstances. The attention of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge are drawn to Section 503 of the IPC, which defines criminal intimidation as under:

"Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. The explanation provides that a threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is wit in this section."

From a perusal of the definition it would appear that the threat must be with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act or omit to do any act, Section 506 is in two parts. It reads as under:

"Whoever commits the offence of original intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

This part of Section 506 is commonly known as 506-A. The second part of Section 506 which is commonly described as 506B provides that:

"If the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

3. The ingredients required to be stated in the First Information Report and to be proved during the course of the trial are that the accused threatened some persons with injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or property to another in whom that person is interested or threat was to cause death or grievous hurt etc. The intimidation must be extended with intention to cause alarm to that person. The First Information Report in the present case says that the complainant had contracted marriage of his daughter with Mohan Raikwar. The marriage was to be performed on 12.3.1999 but abruptly the said Mohan Raikwar made a demand of gold chain which the complainant was unable to meet. The complaint further reads that the 'Barat' which was taking food and had not finished when the said Mohan Raikwar caused some injury to Satish, brother of the bride and at that point of time the said Mohan Raikwar refused to take the. bride with him. On being asked not to do so the accused started abusing and caused an intimidation to kill. There was a written report lodged on 12.3.1999 itself at about 9 p.m. From the case diary it appears that the police came to the spot and compelled the accused to take the bride with him. On 12.3.1999 and 14.3.1999 the prosecution agency re