Gautam Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3990 MP

         01          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        M.Cr.C. No. 38258/2021
           (Gautam Shrivastava & Anr. vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated: 05/8/2021
      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.

      Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Dy. Advocate General

for the respondent-State.

This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of

anticipatory bail.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with

Crime No.582/2021 registered at Police Station Dabra (City), District

Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 and 406 of IPC and

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants - Gautam

Shrivastava and Shubham Shrivastava that applicant No. 1 is the

father-in-law and applicant No. 2 is brother-in-law of the

complainant. Applicant No.1 is an old man aged around 64 years

whereas applicant No. 2 is a young boy aged around 26 years and is

preparing for UPSC Civil Services Examination. Recently, applicant

No. 1 had suffered from COVID-19 infection and is still recovering.

It is further submitted that marriage of the complainant with co-

accused Himanshu, son of applicant No. 1, was solemnized on

19/11/2019 as per hindu rites and ritual. As there was no cordial 02 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38258/2021 (Gautam Shrivastava & Anr. vs. State of M.P.)

relations between the husband and wife, therefore, quarrel took place

between them and this false FIR has been lodged. It is further

submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant No. 2

was living in Delhi for preparation of UPSC Civil Services

Examination and has recently came back to Gwalior and husband of

the complainant is posted in Mijoram. It is further submitted that even

if the allegations is accepted in toto, the maximum punishment

prescribed is upto seven years, therefore, applicant is entitled for

grant of anticipatory bail in the light of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar,

[(2014) 8 SCC 273] and the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Zareena Begam vs. State of M.P. In

MCRC No.30933/2020. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail

to the applicants.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has

submitted that there is clear allegation of demand of dowry of

Rs.20,00,000/- against the present applicants and applicant No. 1

compelled the complainant/daughter-in-law by cruelty. It is further

submitted that investigation is still going on. Hence, prayed to reject

the anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and 03 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38258/2021 (Gautam Shrivastava & Anr. vs. State of M.P.)

considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the available

record.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the

applicants as well as the fact that applicants are the father-in-law and

brother-in-law of the complainant, without commenting on merits of

the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of

arrest, present applicants be released on bail on each of them

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy

Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

Applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by

the Investigating Officer as and when required. They shall further

abide by other conditions as enumerated under sub-Section 2 of

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

This MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Date: 2021.08.05 16:24:48 +05'30'

AKS Judge