Chattisgarh High Court
Himanshu Bhuarya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 998 of 2022
Himanshu Bhuarya S/o Shri Hirdayaram Bhuarya Aged About 28 Years
R/o Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar , Chikhali, P.S. Chikhali, Tehsil And
District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Kotwali, Police Post Chikhali, District - Rajnandgaon , Chhattisgarh
--- Non-applicant
________________________________________________________
For the Applicant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate.
For State/ Non-applicant : Mr. G. P. Kurre, P. L.
For the Objector : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate
________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
27.07.2022
1.
This first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant who is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.551/2022
registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Police Post Chikhali, District-
Rajnandgaon, CG for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of
IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a complaint has been lodged to
the concerned police station alleging that the applicant has deserted her
after marriage and not willing to reside with her. On the basis of such
report police has registered an offence under Section 498-A of IPC
against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits
that the allegations against the applicant is that after marriage he
deserted the complainant and not willing to reside with her and she has
been harassed. It is submitted that the said allegations is not come in the
purview of Section 498-A of IPC, because there was no any demand of
dowry, therefore, no case has been made out against the applicant. He
further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273 is not completely complied. Therefore, he may be released on
anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application and submits that there is clear case of
demand of dowry, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the
applicant is liable to be rejected.
5. Counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail
applicant and submits that the applicant has deserted her and not willing
to reside with her, therefore, his bail application liable to be rejected.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact
that there is no any allegations for demand of dowry or cruelty against
the present applicant, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail to applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and
it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
arresting officer, on the following conditions:-
(a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to
the Court or to any police officer,
(b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial,
(c) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature
in future.
(d) He shall appear before the concerned Police
Officer/Investigating Officer on 23.08.2022 for co-operating in
investigation.
7. It is made clear that the if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by
the applicant, the State/victim would be free to move for cancellation of
bail.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
parul
