Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Megh) 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Smti Saroj Ganeriwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
AB. No. 11 of 2021
Decided On : 24-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. N.Mozika, Sr. Adv. with Ms. T.Sutnga, Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. H.Kharmih, GA

Point of Law : Petitioner is to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
1. That she will not abscond or tamper with the witnesses and evidence;
2. That she will co-operate with the investigating agency, particularly the IO;
3. That she will not leave the jurisdiction of India without due permission of the IO or the Court as the case may be;

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498(A)/506/34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 4 – Cruelty – Criminal Intimidation - Couple were blessed with a son called Viraaj at Manchester, however in the midst of the pandemic, the daughter-in-law wanted to come back to her maternal home at Tura, Meghalaya and in spite of her husband’s advice against it, she along with the Petitioner came back to India along with the child - Couple has been staying separately since then.
Facts of the case : The allegations therein are required to be enquired into which is why the investigation is underway. That the Petitioner herein has been named as one of the accused in the said complaint is also a fact and accordingly, as per due procedure of law, she is required to be questioned within or without custody. Be that as it may, that the Petitioner has reasonable apprehension of being arrested in a case involving non-bailable sections of law is also apparent from the face of the record.
Result : Application disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court with an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. apparently being apprehensive of being arrested in connection with Tura Women P.S. Case No 0059/2021 under section 498(A)/506/34 IPC r/w section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is the widowed mother of Shri Rohit Ganeriwal who is married to Smti Naina Ganeriwal on 04.06.2014 at Tinsukia, Assam. The said marriage was an arranged marriage since the families of the bride and groom were known to each other through common friends in the community.

3. After the marriage, the couple lived in Bengaluru, Karnataka and in pursuit of employment, her son shifted to Manchester, UK where he stayed there along with his wife. In the year 2019, a son was born to them.

4. During the initial stage of pregnancy, the Petitioner went to live with her son and his wife in Manchester where she witnessed the attitude of her daughter-in-law who was always finding fault with her son and there were frequent arguments sometimes to the extent that she exhibited a violent nature towards her son.

5. On 03.03.2020, the couple were blessed with a son called Viraaj at Manchester, however in the midst of the pandemic, the daughter-in-law wanted to come back to her maternal home at Tura, Meghalaya and in spite of her husband’s advice against it, she along with the Petitioner came back to India along with the child. The couple has been staying separately since then.

6. The Petitioner further states that the said daughter-in-law after seven years of marriage then filed an Ejahar alleging torture and dowry demand against her and her son which is an act of vengeance only to harass the Petitioner and her son, the FIR being duly registered as Tura Women P.S. Case No 0059/2021 under section 498(A)/506/34 IPC r/w section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. Being apprehensive of arrest in connection with the said Tura P.S. Case, the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Dr N.Mozika, Learned Senior Counsel arguing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is residing at Tinsukia, Assam and is not residing with the Informant/Daughter-in-law and her son and as such, has nothing to do with the difference between the couple.

9. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is a 70 years old widowed lady and is a cancer survivor and is presently suffering from various ailments like Asthma, depression, High BP and Vertigo. Relevant medical certificate duly annexed with this application was highlighted by the learned senior Counsel.

10. Again, it is further submitted that the marital discord between the Petitioner’s son and the complainant and the FIR is filed after more than one year of the Complainant’s return to India from Manchester just to harass and pressurise the Petitioner and there is no indication to any demand of dowry or torture.

11. There being a reasonable apprehension of arrest on being accused of having committed a non-bailable offence, the Petitioner has therefore come before this Court with this instant application with an undertaking to bind herself to any conditions imposed by the Court on being enlarged on bail in the event of being arrested in connection with the said Tura P.S. case indicated above.

12. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that on this Court being pleased to grant interim bail, the Petitioner has appeared before the IO at Tura on 09.09.2021 and her statement was recorded. Along with her, some other witnesses including her nephew, Shri Avinash Jalan and his wife Smti Nitu Jalan were examined by the IO. This shows that the Petitioner is co-operating with the investigation inspite of her ill health.

13. To support his contentions, the learned senior Counsel has cited the case of “Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)”, (2020) 5 SCC 1, para 40 and also the case of “Siddharam Satlinggappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra”, (2011) 1 SCC, 694, p