And CRR No. 1409 of 2020 (PREETI SHARMA Vs SHWETA AND OTHERS)

GWALIOR; dated 01.02.2021.

Shri R.K.Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Shri V.K.Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner in CRR No.1082 of 2020 and Shri R.K.Pathak, counsel for the petitioner in CRR No.1409 of 2020.

Shri Vinod Pathak, Panel lawyer for the respondent/State in both the matters and Shri Jitendra Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.2 in CRR no.1082 of 2020.

Present criminal revisions have been filed against the orders dated 6/2/2020 passed by Shri Sachin Sharma, Third ASJ, Gwalior (in both the matters), whereby, the applications filed by the petitioner for cancellation of bail has been rejected.

The facts in nut-shell giving rise to filing these revisions are that earlier the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with Vivek Sharma ten years back. It was alleged that after marriage her in-laws and husband started harassing her for demand of dowry and husband Vivek had also committed unnatural sexual activities with the petitioner, therefore, a report was lodged against the in-

And CRR No. 1409 of 2020 (PREETI SHARMA Vs SHWETA AND OTHERS)

laws/respondents in both the matters including husband, where, Crime No.71/20 was registered for the offences under sections 498-A, 377, 323,294 and 34 IPC.

Respondents in both the matters, filed anticipatory bail applications before the trial court which were considered and allowed by the trial court in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2014 SC 2356. Therefore, alleging non application of mind and non applicability of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh kumar (Supra), cancellation of bail has been sought herein.

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that overlooking the relevant aspect of the case, the learned trial court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons without properly appreciating the correct facts placed before the court in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra) whereas, And CRR No. 1409 of 2020 (PREETI SHARMA Vs SHWETA AND OTHERS)

the fact remains that the offence registered under Section 377 of IPC in the matter was punishable with RI for ten years. Despite of the same, and considering the case of Arnesh kumar (Supra) which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applications for anticipatory bail have been allowed and the benefit has been extended to the accused.

This court has considered over all facts and circumstances of the case and also gone through the record. It is found that learned trial court has applied its mind and has disposed of the matters in the light of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). It appears that learned trial court has considered the aspect that there can be a possibility of amicable settlement owing to family dispute between the parties and the criminal case has arisen out of the same and in view of the said possibility, the court has applied the judgment of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). It is not the case of petitioners that after granting benefit of anticipatory bail, the respondents have not cooperated with the And CRR No. 1409 of 2020 (PREETI SHARMA Vs SHWETA AND OTHERS)

authorities in the investigation.

Cancellation of bail can only be considered in the exceptional circumstances in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 317 and Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 149. None of the ingredients are available for consideration of the cases for cancellation of bail. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the orders passed by the trial Court.

These revisions are therefore, dismissed.

CC as per rules. (Vishal Mishra)

Judge Rks.

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2022.06.20