HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M. Cr. C. No.4255/2019
Kunal Bagdi and Others
Vs.
State of M. P.
Indore, dated 30/01/2019
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with Police Station Pandrinath, Indore at Crime No.02/2019.
The applicant No.1 is the husband of the complainant, the applicant No.2 is father-in-law, applicant No.3 is mother-in-law and applicants No.4 and 4 are also relatives of husband / complainant. It has been stated that a marriage took place on 29/06/2018 of the complainant with applicant No.1 Kunal Bagdi in Ahmedabad and they stayed together for 15-20 days, thereafter, the complainant came back to Indore. The allegation against the applicants is that a demand of dowry was made and the girl was subjected to cruelty.
Learned counsel for the applicants has argued before this Court that in fact the complainant was having some affairs with someone and she was stopped from chatting with her boyfriend. The applicants made all possible effort for a peaceful ending of the marriage, however, a false complaint has been lodged against entire family and on the basis of omnibus statements made by the girl and her parents, a criminal case has been registered. It has also been stated that all the applicants are residents of Gujarat and they are respectable persons and there is no apprehension of their absconsion. A prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail. He has read out the statements available in the case diary and has stated that there are specific allegations against the applicants and therefore, the question of grant of bail does not arise.
The another important aspect of the case is that a divorce suit is also pending between the parties. It was filed on 06/12/2018 and notices have also been issued and FIR has been lodged only after the divorce suit has been filed.
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case but without commenting on merits, at this stage, is of the opinion that the application for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
Accordingly the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicants’ arrest, the applicants be released on bail on their each furnishing personal bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with separate surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned. The applicants would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE
Date: 2019.01.30