Shashank Soni S/O Sh. Brij Kishore ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6833 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                              15564/2021

1.       Shashank Soni S/o Sh. Brij Kishore Soni, R/o 501 Nilgiri-
         9 Ns Road Plot No. 5 Juhu Scheme Ps Juhu Vile Parle
         West Mumbai Maharashtra
2.       Birj Kishore Soni S/o Late Sh. Kishan Gopal Soni, R/o 501
         Nilgiri- 9 Ns Road Plot No. 5 Juhu Scheme Ps Juhu Vile
         Parle West Mumbai Maharashtra
3.       Aruna Soni W/o Sh. Brij Kishore Soni, R/o 501 Nilgiri- 9
         Ns Road Plot No. 5 Juhu Scheme Ps Juhu Vile Parle West
         Mumbai Maharashtra
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr. Naman Maheshwari For Complainant(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

23/11/2021

1. Petitioners have filed this second bail application under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.37/2021 was registered at Police Station, Mahila

Thana Jaipur (South), Jaipur for offence under Sections 498-A,

406 & 323 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the

marriage took place in the year 2017. Both the parties are well off.

The complainant was having more attachment towards her own

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-15564/2021]

family rather than her in-laws family, on which some dispute took

place. It is contended that parties decided to part and petition of

divorce by mutual consent was drafted by the counsel for the

Petitioner No.1 and was sent to the complainant but, the

complainant counsel was not satisfied with the draft and he

wanted the petitioners to first return the dowry articles. It is also

mentioned that the application under Section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act be filed at Jaipur. It is also contended that after

lodging of the F.I.R., petitioners have returned the dowry articles,

list of the same is annexed with the petition.

4. It is further contended that petitioners have appeared before

the Investigating Officer thrice in pursuance of the notice under

Section 41-A (1) of Cr.P.C. It is contended that as per the

directions of the Court, mediation proceedings were initiated but

the same failed, as the parties could not agree to the amount to

be paid by the petitioners to the complainant, as full time

settlement.

5. It is also contended that the Apex Court in "Arnesh Kumar

Vs. State of Bihar" 2014 (8) SCC 273 has discussed the

powers of police to arrest a person. It is further contended that

the maximum punishment provided under Sections 498-A & 406

of IPC is three years. Petitioners had offered Rs.1.80 crore to the

complainant to part and to enter into a divorce by mutual consent

which was not agreed by the complainant. Petitioners are not

required for further investigation in the case.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail application. It is contended that out of the

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-15564/2021]

list of dowry articles which was supplied to the police some

jewelley have been recovered and nineteen articles are not yet

returned to the complainant. It is also contended that there is

specific allegation against Petitioner No.1 with regard to physical

assault and of turning out the complainant from the house on

31.08.2020.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Majority of the items given at the time of the marriage have

been returned to the complainant, as is evident from the receipt

signed by the complainant. Petitioners have already appeared

before the Investigating Officer. The maximum sentence provided

for both the offences is three years. Due to some reasons, parties

are not able to stay together. No purpose would be served in

arresting the petitioners, hence, I deem it proper to allow the

anticipatory bail application.

9. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The

S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South),

Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 37/2021 is directed that in the event of arrest of the

petitioners, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to their

satisfaction on the following conditions:-

(I). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-15564/2021]

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 any police officer, and

(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous

permission of the Court.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /17

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)