Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 718 (ORI)

Bajranglal Singhania v. State of Orissa

2008-08-19

B.K.PATEL

body2008
ORDER B.K. PATEL, J. — Heard learned counsel for the peti¬tioners and learned counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Admittedly, no F.I.R. has yet been registered against the petitioners so far. However, the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as well as one Sunil Singhania was served with a notice dated 02.07.2008 by the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station to appear before the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur on 03.07.2008 as required under VHF message No.662, dated 28.06.2008. Though, by ordered dated 07.08.2008 and 12.08.2008 this case was ad¬journed in order to enable the learned counsel for the State to obtain instruction as to whether any case was contemplated to be instituted against the petitioners, the learned counsel for the State produces a letter dated 17.08.2008 of the I.I.C., Jharsu¬guda Police Station to the effect that no case has yet been registered so far in the Jharsuguda Police Station against the petitioner No.1 and that on receipt of VHF message from I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur the petitioner No.1 was served with a notice to appear at Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur for reconciliation of the dispute with his wife. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents of one Sunil Kumar Singhania, who is married to one Anita Singhania of Sambalpur. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are respec¬tively son and daughter of petitioners Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner No.4 is petitioner No.3’s wife and petitioner No.6 is petitioner No.5’s wife. Above said Sunil’s wife Anita created dissection in the family of the petitioners for which said Sunil was constrained to live alongwith his wife in a rented house in another place at a distance of seven to eight kilometers from their house. While residing with her husband, said Anita used to ill-treat, harass and misbehave her husband in different manners still she left the house after quarrelling with her husband without informing anybody about eight to nine month back. In the background of such rela¬tionship between the petitioners vis-a-vis their son Sunil’s wife Anita, the petitioners received a letter, copy of which is Annex¬ure-1 of this bail application, stating that in view of torture committed by his wife it would be proper to commit suicide than to live in such manner. In the background of such rela¬tionship between the petitioners vis-a-vis their son Sunil’s wife Anita, the petitioners received a letter, copy of which is Annex¬ure-1 of this bail application, stating that in view of torture committed by his wife it would be proper to commit suicide than to live in such manner. It is further submitted that above-said Anita as well as her parents and brother are threatening that unless they pay of Rupees 5.00 lakhs to them, they will put the petitioners to trouble by implicating them in a case of dowry torture and dowry demand. When the matter stood thus, the peti¬tioner No.1 received the notice from the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station directing appearance before the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur which has raised reasonable apprehen¬sion in the mind of the petitioners that above said Anita had ap¬proached the police with false allegations against the petition¬ers as threatened by her parents and brother. Having heard from both sides and upon perusal of the notice issued by the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station, it appear that petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as well as Sunil Singhania have been directed to appear before the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur. The letter dated 17.08.2008 of the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station further shows that the petitioners have been di¬rected to appear in the police station for reconciliations of dispute. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that allegation of dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and above said Anita on the other hand has been brought to the notice of I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur. In such circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and the documents annexed to the anticipatory bail application as well as the letter dated 17.08.2008 of I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station produced by the learned counsel for the State substantiate the petitioners apprehension that there is reason to be believe that they may be arrested in connection with allegations of commission of demand for dowry and cruelty in connection with demand for dowry. In more or less similar situation, this Court relying upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbla, etc. v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 found it fit to exercise the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail even though no F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioners in Shyam Sundar Jhanwar & Others v. State of Orissa, (2008) 39 OCR 897. v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 found it fit to exercise the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail even though no F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioners in Shyam Sundar Jhanwar & Others v. State of Orissa, (2008) 39 OCR 897. The reasoning and ratio in the case of Shyam Sundar Jhanwar & Others (supra) squarely applies to the facts ad circumstances to the preset case. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case, it is directed that in the event an F.I.R. is lodged in Jharsuguda Police Station or Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur against the petitioners making allegations of dowry demand and cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alongwith allegation of commission of any other minor offence by the above-said Anita Singhania wife of Sunil Kumar Singhania and/or her parents and other relations and any of the petitioner is arrested in connection with such case, he/she shall be released on bail on furnishing of a bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to his/her under¬taking to appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation. This order shall remain in force till submission of the charge sheet. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. BLAPL disposed of.