Anshul Jagga vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 4952 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1040/2021

Anshul Jagga S/o Ravindra Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, House No. 80, Gali No. 01, Bank Colony, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus State, Through P.p.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. D.S. Thind

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.

For Complainant(s)             Mr. Himmat Jagga



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

22/02/2021

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR

No.298/2020 of Police Station Woman, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory

bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

allegations of commission of cruelty and demand of dowry levelled

by the complainant in the complaint are absolutely false. It is

argued that after the marriage of the petitioner, he went to

Udaipur, where he used to work as Manager in a private company

and the complainant had regularly insisted the petitioner to keep

her with him but due to financial constraints, he was unable to

keep the complainant with him, however, ultimately the petitioner

took her away to Udaipur, but there also, the complainant used to

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-1040/2021]

fight with the petitioner on various issues. It is further submitted

that complainant, as per her own free will, left Udaipur and came

to her parents' house at Sri Ganganagar and thereafter lodged this

complaint against the petitioner levelling false allegations. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner

had already joined the investigation and also deposited all the

streedhan at the police station in the presence of the complainant

party. It is also submitted that as such there is no requirement of

custodial interrogation of the petitioner, therefore, he may be

granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail

application and submitted that soon after the marriage of the

petitioner and the complainant on 07.07.2019 the petitioner and

his family members started constant harassment to the

complainant while demanding dowry and treated her with cruelty.

Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the

complainant in her complaint has specifically mentioned the

amount which was demanded by the petitioner and his family

members as dowry. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant have, therefore, submitted that in the

facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled

for grant of anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

The Police during the course of investigation had recorded

the statements of some of the independent witnesses who took

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1040/2021]

participation in the mediation proceedings between the family of

the petitioner and the complainant and the said witnesses have

also confirmed that dispute between the petitioner and the

complainant regarding dowry. It is also noticed that during

mediation proceedings before the High Court the petitioner has

refused to keep the complainant with him though she is agree to

live with him.

In the factual report it is mentioned that till so far the police

have found prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Sections 406 and 498A IPC

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

after going through the case diary wherein the complainant has

levelled serious allegation of demand of dowry and harassment

against the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

178-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)