Anil Dawar @ Bobyy Dawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8934 MP

                           1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         MCRC.No.54912/2021
          (Anil Dawar @ Bobyy Dawar Vs. The State of M.P.)

Gwalior Bench : Dated : 17.12.2021

      Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Pramod Pachauri, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the case diary.

This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed by

the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No.571/2021 registered at Police Station Shivpuri Kotwali, District

Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304 B,

498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant apprehends his arrest on the basis of registration of offence as

referred above. The applicant, who is uncle-in-law (pkpk llqj) of the

deceased, is living separately from the household of the deceased as he

lives at Indore whereas deceased committed suicide at Shivpuri. The

applicant is a family man and has to take care of his children, particulars

of whom are referred in application alongwith the documents. At the

relevant point of time he was undergoing treatment of rectum surgery,

therefore, soon before death of his daughter-in-law, he was not in a

position to exert pressure for dowry demand. Husband of the deceased is

already in jail. Since he is a business man at Indore, therefore, chance of

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.54912/2021 (Anil Dawar @ Bobyy Dawar Vs. The State of M.P.)

absconsion is remote. Confinement may bring social disrepute and

personal inconvenience. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in

investigation/ trial and would not be a source of harassment and

embarrassment to the complainant party in any manner. He undertakes

to perform community service to purge his misdeeds, if any, by way of

plantation and to serve national /environmental/social cause. On these

grounds, he prayed for bail

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and

prayed for rejection of anticipatory bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

appended thereto.

Considering the submissions and the arguments advanced by the

counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits of

the case, I deem it appropriate to allow the application under Section 438

of Cr.P.C. as per the spirit of judgment passed by this Court in the case of

Sunita Gandharva Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2020 (3)

MPLJ (Cri.) 247, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the

applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of

Rs.50,000/- each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting

Authority/Investigating Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.54912/2021 (Anil Dawar @ Bobyy Dawar Vs. The State of M.P.)

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 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 the

trial;

5. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of

the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

6. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and

when required and would cooperate in the investigation;

7. The applicant shall mark his appearance on every fortnight

(Sunday) before the concerning Investigating Officer between 10:30

AM to 02:30 PM , till filing of the charge sheet.

8. It is made clear that this bail is granted once the case is made

out for bail and thereafter, direction for plantation of saplings is

given and it is not the case where a person intends to serve social

cause can be given bail without considering the merits.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.54912/2021 (Anil Dawar @ Bobyy Dawar Vs. The State of M.P.)

9. As per the undertaking given by learned counsel on behalf of the

applicant, it is hereby directed that applicant shall plant 5 saplings (either

fruit bearing trees or Neem and Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to

make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the

duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture

them. " o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gS A" He shall plant

saplings/trees preferably of 6-8 ft., so that they would grow into full

fledged trees at an early time. For ensuring the compliance, he shall have

to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/saplings before the

concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of

release of the applicant. The report shall be submitted by the applicant

before the trial Court concerned on 1st day of every month.

It is the duty of the concerned trial Court to monitor the progress

of the trees because human existence is at stake because of the

environmental degradation and Court cannot put a blind fold over any

casualness shown by the applicant regarding compliance. Therefore,

concerned trial Court is directed to submit a report regarding progress of

the trees and the compliance made by the applicant by placing a short

report before the concerned trial Court every quarterly (every three

months). Any default shall disentitle the applicant from benefit of bail.

The applicant is directed to plant these saplings/ trees at the place of his

choice, if he intends to protect the trees on his own cost by providing tree

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.54912/2021 (Anil Dawar @ Bobyy Dawar Vs. The State of M.P.)

guards or fencing, for which applicant shall have to bear necessary

expenses for plantation of the trees and their measures for safeguard.

This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address

the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step

towards Alignment with Nature. The natural instinct of compassion,

service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as

they are innately engrained attributes of human existence. "It is not

the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a

Thought."

The District Magistrate concerned is directed to intimate this

Court in case condition No.9 is not complied with and on receipt of any

such intimation, Registry is directed to list the matter before appropriate

bench as PUD.

It is expected from the applicant that he shall submit

photographs by downloading the mobile application (App) prepared

at the instance of High Court (Nisarg MPHC) for monitoring the

plantation though satellite/Geo-tagging.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for

compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                                              (Anand Pathak)
AK/-                                                              Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.12.20
       11:38:37 +05'30'