Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 1010
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.R.Waghmare, J.
Sangeeta and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 7168-2012
Decided On : 04-10-2012
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri N.J. Dave, Learned Counsel
For Respondents/Defendant:Shri Deepak Rawal, Learned Govt. Advocate for the State
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of false implication and the separate residence of the accused in a dowry harassment case, in line with the principles established in previous court decisions.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Dowry Harassment - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, considering the false implication and the fact that they resided separately from the complainant, in line with the principles established in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & another and Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of dowry harassment under Sections 4989(A), 506 of the IPC and 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. They were accused by the complainant, who resided separately from them, of demanding dowry, which the applicants denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants resided separately from the complainant and were falsely implicated, granting them anticipatory bail in the interest of justice.
Issues: The main issue was the false implication of the applicants in a dowry harassment case, despite residing separately from the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles established in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & another and Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others, which deprecated the practice of roping in all family members in dowry cases and emphasized the need to consider the nature of allegations.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, directing them to be released on bail for 30 days and to apply for regular bail within that period, while abiding by the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.
Judgment
S.R. Waghmare, J.;-
1. By this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. applicants Sangeeta & Bhupendra have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No. 344/12 registered by police station Bhikangaon, Khargone for offence under Sections 4989(A), 506 of the IPC and 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the present applicants Sangeeta & Bhupendra are the sister-in-law (Nanad) and brother-in-law of the complainant Neha. Moreover, Counsel submitted that both the applicants are resided separately, whereas applicant No. 1 Sangeeta resided at Barwani and applicant No. 2 Bhupendra is a student and was studying at Bhopal, have been implicated by the complainant Neha making false allegation regarding demand of dowry against them which is not possible under the circumstances. Moreover, complainant Neha resided separately from her husband also and was habitual to making false complaint. Counsel placed reliance on Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & another {2010 CRI. L.J. 4303} & Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others: AIR 2000 SC 2324 to state that the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of roping in all the family members in dowry case. Moreover, Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicants. He however candidly admitted that both the applicants were resided separately from the complainant Neha. Hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.
3. On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and placing reliance on Preeti Gupta & Kans Raj (supra), I find that application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is, therefore, allowed.
4. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail for the period of 30 days (thirty days) upon their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for their further appearance as and when directed.
5. The applicants shall apply for regular bail within the aforesaid period of 30 days which shall be dealt by the trial Court in accordance with law.
6. It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. Cc. as per rules.
