IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Nandita Dubey, J.
Vijay Patel @ Brijendra Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 33356 of 2022
Decided On : 15-03-2023
Anticipatory Bail - Offences under Sections 498-A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail based on the omnibus nature of the allegations and absence of specific allegations against the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 498-A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged demands for a car and unnatural acts by the applicant, who is the elder brother-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, considering the omnibus nature of the allegations against all family members and absence of specific allegations against the applicant. The court directed the applicant to comply with specified conditions upon release.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant based on the allegations of demanding a car and unnatural acts, and the absence of specific allegations against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the omnibus nature of the allegations against all family members, absence of specific allegations against the applicant, and the lack of criminal antecedents registered against the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail and directed the applicant to comply with specified conditions upon release.
JUDGMENT
Nandita Dubey, J. - This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.98/2023 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. As per the prosecution, the applicant is the elder brother-in-law of the complainant who has lodged the complaint stating that she got married on 14.06.2022 and from the very next day, her husband and the rest of the family members started demanding a car from her parents and she has made allegation against the applicant that he used to unnatural act with her.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that apart from the omnibus allegation that all the family members were demanding a car from the parents of the complainant, no other allegation has been made against him. It is pointed out that specific allegation is against the husband of the complainant. It is stated that the trial Court has refused his bail application only for the reason that his younger brother, i.e., husband of the complainant is absconding.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has not disputed the fact that omnibus allegation about demand of car has been made against all the co-accused including the present applicant. She fairly stated that no other allegation has been made against the present applicant.
6. Considering the case diary statement and the fact that the allegation is omnibus against all the persons and no criminal antecedents are registered against the applicant, without adverting to the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
7. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.
8. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2 . The applicant will make himself available as and when called for interrogation and cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending 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 to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during trial;
5 . The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and
6. If the applicant commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
The court considered the omnibus nature of the allegations and absence of specific allegations against the applicant in granting anticipatory bail.
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused.
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.
Entitlement to anticipatory bail based on specific allegations of harassment and illegal demands.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if there are no specific allegations against the applicant, ensuring the right to a fair trial and evidentiary support for accusations.
Anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 when allegations do not warrant preemptive detention, provided conditions to protect ongoing investigations are set.
It does not lay down that the anticipatory bail has to be given, irrespective of the role attributable to an accused in the commission of the offence.
Anticipatory bail can be granted in serious allegations, balancing the gravity of charges with the rights of the accused under specific conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.