Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 147 (CHH)

GOPI @ GOVIND BHARADWAJ v. STATE OF C. G.

2004-08-05

L.C.BHADOO

body2004
ORDER 1. The accused/applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in Crime No. 305/2004 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh for commission of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for releasing him on anticipatory bail before arrest. 2. The case of the prosecution is that deceased-Mamta Bhardwaj was married to the present accused/applicant on 28-2-2000 and out of the wedlock one female child of two years is there. On 18-04-2004 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night deceased-Mamta received bum injuries and she was immediately taken to K.G. Hospital, Raigarh by the accused/applicant. However, on account of extensive bum injuries she died on 19-04-2004 at about 4.00 p.m. in the said hospital. The matter was reported to the police station city Kotwali Raigarh by the doctors of the said hospital. On this a case was registered and the matter is still under investigation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant argued that at the relevant time the accused/applicant and the deceased both were residing separately and on the fateful day when the deceased was cooking meal on stove, she caught fire and received the bum injuries. He further argued that the letters written by the father of the deceased to the accused/applicant (Annexure P-4 & P-5) shows that there was no harassment or cruelty on the part of the accused/applicant and the relations between the accused/applicant & deceased-Mamta were normal. He further argued that a diary was being maintained by deceased-Mamta in which she has categorically written about their financial condition and that the accused/applicant was earning only Rs. 300/- per month by serving in a betel shop, therefore, they were not able to pay the house rent and even to arrange for the food. In the diary she had nowhere written that her husband i.e. the accused/applicant used to harass her for demand of dowry, on the contrary she had written in the diary that how the accused/applicant was faithful towards her, as he used to provide everything to her by sacrificing his heeds. Moreover as soon as the petitioner came to know about the incident he tried to save Mamta and in that process he himself received bum injuries and remained hospitalized for three days. Moreover as soon as the petitioner came to know about the incident he tried to save Mamta and in that process he himself received bum injuries and remained hospitalized for three days. Therefore, the accused/applicant be extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and he be released on anticipatory bail 5. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer Shri Tiwari opposed the bail application and argued that in the year 2003 a complaint was lodged by the mother of the deceased in Mahila Thana, Raipur in which there was a mention of harassment and cruelty, ultimately, the matter was compromised. Now in this case the statements of the mother and father of the deceased have been recorded and in those statement they have stated about the cruelty and harassment by the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application of the accused/applicant should be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that these two statements were recorded in the month of June 2004, but in the letters written earlier by the father of the deceased nothing has been mentioned about the harassment and cruelty meted out by the accused/applicant. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that after the marriage the accused/applicant and deceased used to reside with the parents and other family members of the accused/applicant and at that time there was some dispute between deceased-Mamta and parents of the accused/applicant and therefore the accused/applicant and his wife Mamta started living separately. Even in the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased at Mahila Thana, Raipur there is no allegation against the present accused/applicant regarding the demand of dowry or harassment. The main allegations were against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. Therefore in view of the above I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the accused/applicant should be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application (M.Cr.C. 1304/2004) is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant-Gopi @ Govind Bhardwaj he be released on anticipatory bail for a period of two months from today, provided he furnishers personal bond of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer. 5000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer. However, the applicant shall abide the conditions provided under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. i.e. he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required, he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquamted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. 8. This order shall remain effective for a period of two months from today. During this period the applicant may apply for regular bail and the trial Court shall decide the bail on its own merits. Bail Granted.