Tolaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1802 MP

-1-                MCRC No.18072/21 & MCRC No.18815/21
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                          BENCH AT INDORE
                        MCRC NO.18072/2021
        Devkaran s/o Chainsingh & one another vs. State of M.P
                        MCRC NO.18815/2021
      Tolaram s/o Balram Nagar, Anil s/o Tolaram Nagar, Rajesh s/o
  Tolaram Nagar & Smt.Sushila w/o Rajesh Nagar vs. State of M.P
05.05.2021

: (INDORE):

Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Prabal Jain, learned Panel Advocate for the State. Shri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the complainant. Heard through video conferencing.

These are the first applications filed under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.96/2021 registered at police station Narsinghgarh, district Rajgarh for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 506 & 34 of the IPC & u/s ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the prosecution case marriage of the complainant, Manju Nagar was solemnized with Sunil in the year 2017 and thereafter they started living in Bhopal because Sunil was working in some factory at Mandideep, Bhopal. A matrimonial dispute arose between them because of which Sunil filed a divorce case before the Family Court. Thereafter, the complainant filed an FIR on 07.03.2021 alleging demand of dowry, cruelty etc. against the husband and his family members like his father, mother, Jeth, Jethani etc.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations levelled against the applicants are omnibus in nature. No documentary evidence has been submitted before the police. The FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the husband, however, he submits that the dispute between husband and wife are not on serious issues and there is a possibility of compromise between them near future by way of mediation or conciliation. If applicants are arrested then there would not be any chance for any conciliation in future, therefore, in order to save the family the applicants be protected from arrest. He has further placed

-2- MCRC No.18072/21 & MCRC No.18815/21 reliance over the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Learned counsel for the State as well as objector oppose the bail applications by submitting that the allegation of abortion and strangulation of the complainant is serious in nature, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for bail.

Perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicants and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) coupled with the fact that the allegations are omnibus in nature, without commenting on the merit of the case, the applications are allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the following conditions:

(a) the applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) they 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(c) If the applicants are found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of anticipatory bail shall be liable to be cancelled; and

(d) they shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

In the impugned the order dated 17.3.2021 learned Ist A.S.J, Narsingh has not mentioned the complete facts of the case despite the availability of the case diary. The learned Judges dealing with the bail application are supposed to mention the prosecution case in brief based on the material available in the case.

-3- MCRC No.18072/21 & MCRC No.18815/21 Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned lower Court.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR C G NAIR Date: 2021.05.07 11:24:05 +05'30'