Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
01
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 59315 of 2021
(SANJAY PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated: 20/12/2021
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Alok Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on I.A.No.32875/2021, an application under Section
301(2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the prosecution.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel and his associates are
permitted to assist the prosecution on behalf of the complainant.
This is the first bail application under section 438 of CrPC
filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.700/2021 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District
Gwalior (M.P.) for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 494, 34
of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Sanjay
Pathak that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and
he is innocent. He has not committed any offence. The marriage was
solemnized in the year 2011 and FIR has been lodged in the year
2021. Out of wedlock of the applicant and complainant, one girl was
born who is presently 9 years old. It is further submitted that right
hand of the applicant has been amputated in an accident occurred in
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 59315 of 2021
(SANJAY PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
the year 2017, thereafter, behaviour of the complainant of this case
has changed and she has committed cruelty with the applicant,
therefore, applicant has compelled to reside separately. Hence, false
case has been registered against the present applicant. Investigation
and trial will take its own time. Hence, prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the
complainant have vehemently opposed the bail and have submitted
that earlier to accident of husband, an accident of complainant(wife)
had also occurred in year 2016 wherein her face was affected and
thereafter, surgery was done. Due to which, the applicant started
misbehaving with the complainant of this case and started demand of
dowry. As the applicant was also remarried with some other lady
therefore, there is no possibility of compromise between the parties.
The case is registered under sections 498-A, 323, 294, 494, 34 of IPC.
Hence, prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
the allegation of second marriage is baseless that shall be proved
during the course of trial. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
for the applicant relied upon the judgment passed in the case of
Zarina Bagum Vs. State of M.P. [2021 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 276].
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 59315 of 2021
(SANJAY PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail or directions be issued in
the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar:[(2014) 8 SCC 273].
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case
diary.
The case is registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 494, 34
of IPC. Considering the nature and gravity of offence along-with the
facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to grant
of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed under
section 438 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge
Monika*
MONIKA
SHARMA
2021.12.21
10:37:38
+05'30'
