Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sinil @ Sunil Nagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1- MCRC No.24082/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.24082/2021
Sinil @ Sunil s/o Tolaram Nagar vs. State of M.P
20.05.2021
: (INDORE):
Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prabal Jain, learned Panel Advocate for the State.
Heard through video conferencing.
This is first application filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory
bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.96/2021 registered at police station Narsinghgarh, district Rajgarh
for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 506, 34 IPC and u/s ¾ of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per the prosecution case, marriage of the complainant Manju
Nagar was solemnized with applicant : Sunil in the year 2017 and
thereafter they started living in Bhopal because applicant 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
applicant and his family members like his father, mother, Jeth, Jethani
etc.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations
levelled against the applicant are omnibus in nature. No documentary
evidence has been submitted before the police regarding abortion. The
FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the
applicant, 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
applicant is arrested then there would not be any chance for any
conciliation in future, therefore, in order to save the family the
applicant be protected from arrest. He has further placed 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 opposes the bail application by
submitting that the allegation of abortion and strangulation of the
-2- MCRC No.24082/2021
complainant is serious in nature, therefore, the applicant is not entitled
for bail.
Perused the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant 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 application is allowed. It is
directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with
the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his
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 applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and
make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as
and when required;
(b) 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 him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(c) If the applicant is 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) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR C
hk/
G NAIR
Date: 2021.05.21 13:31:29 +05'30'
