Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
P.K. Jaiswal, J.
Mayank - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Misc. Cri. Case No. 10242-2013
Decided On : 24-01-2014
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Case - Prevention of Dowry Act, IPC - [Sections 498A, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act] - The court discussed the legal provisions of anticipatory bail, the power of the court to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences, and the requirement for custodial interrogation. The court also highlighted the need for the accused to surrender to the custody of the court once charge has been framed and the limitations of anticipatory bail in certain situations.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 498A, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act. The applicant was accused of demanding a flat and factory from the complainant's family and exercising mental and physical cruelty towards the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant should be released on anticipatory bail if arrested, on the condition of furnishing a self-bond and a surety. The applicant was required to abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438 of the Code and apply for regular bail within six weeks before the Competent Court.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences, the requirement for custodial interrogation, and the limitations of anticipatory bail in certain situations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences exists even when cognizance is taken or charge-sheet is filed, provided the facts of the case require the court to do so. The court also emphasized the need for the accused to surrender to the custody of the court once charge has been framed and the limitations of anticipatory bail in certain situations.
Final Decision: The applicant was granted anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing a self-bond and a surety, and was required to abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438 of the Code and apply for regular bail within six weeks before the Competent Court.
JUDGMENT
P.K. Jaiswal, J.
1. Applicant-Mayank Shroff, has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 4173/2013, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. Brief facts of the case are that Crime No. 10/2013 has been registered at Mahila Police Station, Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Prevention of Dowry Act in respect of incident dated 23-9-2012. The applicant and Smt. Jyotsna, complainant are legally wedded couple. Complainant married to applicant on 1-12-2011 as per Hindu customs and rites. It is mentioned in the complaint that Rs. 11,00,000/- were given to the applicant at the time of engagement and at the time of marriage Rs. 26,50,000/- through cheques by the father of the complainant.
2. As per the demand of applicant, father of the complainant had borne the entire expenses incurred during their honey moon for which they went to America. That behaviour of the applicant with the complainant for about one month after marriage was good, thereafter his behaviour started getting covetous and he exercised mental as well as physical cruelty upon the complainant.
3. The applicant made a demand for a flat in Mumbai and for fulfillment the said demand the applicant started harassing mentally and physically and sent her to Indore in the month of February, 2012 for convincing her father to purchase a flat in Mumbai in his name.
4. That father of the complainant thereupon made available to the applicant a very well located flat No. 301, Vaitarna, Worli, Mumbai belonging to his company. In spite of this, the applicant was not satisfied. He again made demand from the complainant that though her father had given a flat, it was old and he wanted a flat worth to Rs. 15-20 cores in the Breach Candy Area, which her father should buy for him in his name. It is alleged that the applicant visited the house of the father of the complainant at Indore on various dates and during his visit at Indore he reiterated his demand for a flat in Mumbai to be bought by the father of the complainant in his name and also pressurised the complainant and his parents for transferring the factory of her father situated at Pithampur in his name. On 23-9-2012, he brought the complainant to Indore and once again reiterated his demand of flat and factory and told her father and mother that until his demands are met, he would not keep the complainant along with him and left her at her parental place at Indore. Since then the complainant is residing with her parents only. Due to the aforesaid act of the applicant, complainant was compelled to lodge a report against applicant at Police Station, Mahila Thana at Indore on 21-2-2013.
5. During the course of investigation, the applicant obtained transit anticipatory bail, for his release on bail in Crime No. 10/13, subject to the condition that in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid crime he shall be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond for Rs. 15,000/- with one or more surety in the like amount, on the condition that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required. The order of transit bail was passed for a period of 4 weeks w.e.f. 19-3-2013.
6. After grant of transit anticipatory bail he appeared before the Mahila Police Station on 1-4-2013. At Mahila Police Station, Indore, his statement was recorded. He was interrogated for a period of few hours and thereafter, released on bail.
7. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Mahila Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore on 17-5-2013. The learned Magistrate registered the case as Case No. 15145/2013. On that date, the applicant was absent and, therefore, arrest warrant was issued against him and the case was fixed for his appearance on 5-7-2013. On 5-7-2013, he was absent the case was fixed for 5-9-2013, 23-10-2013, 10-10-2013, 14-1-2014 and now the next date is 29-4-2014
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
