Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 16 (CHH)

RAMPYARI v. STATE OF C. G.

2007-01-08

S.K.SINHA

body2007
ORDER As per Hon 'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- This is an application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants namely Rampyari and Shanta Bharti, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 295/2006, registered at Police Station-Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B) and 201 of I.P.C. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the application on behalf of the applicant No.1 namely Rampyari, because according to the learned counsel for the applicants she has been arrested during the pendency of this petition. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant No. 1 namely Rampyari is dismissed as withdrawn. The brief facts are that, the deceased namely Seema was married to co-accused Uday Bharti on 15-05-2002. She was residing with her husband in Baloda Bazar. She committed suicide by hanging on 06-11-2006 in her husband's place. The Written report in this regard was lodged by mother of the deceased on 09-11-2006, in which she makes allegations that the deceased was being treated with cruelty by her husband and her mother in law namely Rampyari and brother-in- law (Jeth) namely Shanta Bharti also used to treat her with cruelty. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the main allegations are made against husband of the deceased namely Uday Bharti. He submits that according to the First Information Report and also according to the statement of the mother of the deceased no specific allegations are made against the present applicant He also submits that the present applicant was residing in Raipur and he was having no connection with the family affairs of his brother namely Uday Bharti and deceased Seema. He prays for grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. He prays for grant of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the written report and the statement of the mother of the deceased namely Dhaneshwari Bai, in which there are vague allegations against the present applicant and no specific allegation is there either about treating the deceased with cruelty or demanding dowry by him, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which the brother-in-law of the deceased, who is said to be residing separately in Raipur, should be extended benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. His application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of this applicant namely Shanta Bharti, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs, 10000/- (Rs, Ten thousand only) with one surety in-like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting him. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days from today during which, the applicant may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court. Certificated copy as rules. Bail Granted.