Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1367 (RAJ)

Bharat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-13

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The applicant has preferred the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with the FIR being No. 160/20 10 registered at Police Station Khairthal District Alwar for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned public prosecutor for the State as well as advocate for the complainant and perused the relevant material placed before the court. 3. It has been submitted by learned Sr. Advocate Mr. R.K. Mathur for the applicant that the present applicant happens to be the father-in-law of the complainant and the complainant has filed the complaint on SB Cr. Misc. Bail 1348/11 Bharat Singh v. State of Raj., D/d. 1.6.2010 in connections with the allegations of harassment and demand of dowry allegedly made by the applicant in the year 2005 and 2006. According to Mr. R.K. Mathur, the complainant is well educated lady, had contested the election in the year 2008 for the Member of Legislative Assembly and in the year 2010 for Zila Parishad and the complainant is not staying with the applicant since 2007. He has also submitted that the complainant ha s filed the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act also, and the present complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the applicant. He also submitted that during the course of divorce petition filed against the complainant as well as as during the course of pendency of the present application, the efforts were made to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties, however in vein. Mr. R.K. Mathur also submitted that considering the facts of the case the court has also granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.4.20 11 which has been continuing till this date. 4. However, learned public prosecutor Mr. Amit Punia submitted that considering SB Cr. Misc. Bail 1348/11 Bharat Singh v. State of Raj. the nature of allegations and gravity of the offence against the applicant, the present application deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. D.V. Tholia , advocate for the complainant was also permitted to address the court as a special case and he submitted that the complainant was being harassed by her husband and her in -laws by making demand of dowry since she got married and as a last resort, she has filed the complaint in the year 2010. 5. Mr. D.V. Tholia , advocate for the complainant was also permitted to address the court as a special case and he submitted that the complainant was being harassed by her husband and her in -laws by making demand of dowry since she got married and as a last resort, she has filed the complaint in the year 2010. He also submitted that merely because the applicant had contested the elections, that would not be a ground to draw any adverse inference against her. According to him, no lady would prefer to go to the police station for filing FIR against her husband and her in -laws unless she was harassed by her in-law s. He also submitted that the discretion of granting the anticipatory bail should not exercised in such a grave and serious cases. Mr. Tholia has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 4th March, 2011 in SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3214/10 to submit that the 'Stri Dhan' of the complainant is required to be recovered from the applicant, for which no anticipatory bail should be SB Cr. Misc. Bail 1348/11 Bharat Singh v. State of Raj. granted. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, more particularly, the contents and allegations of the FIR, it clearly transpires that the FI R has been filed by the complainant on 1.6 .2010 in respect of the alleged incidents which took place in the year 2005 and 2006 . It is also not disputed by the learned advocate Mr. D.V. Tholia for the complainant that since 2007, the complainant is not staying with her husband and that she also contested the elections of MLA and Zila Parishad. There is no explanation coming forth from the complainant as to why the complainant did not file the FIR at the relevant time of 2005 and 2006, if the allegations contained therein were so serious in nature. The judgment cited by Mr. Tholia is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is inclined to grant t he present application. The court has also ta ken into consideration the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court SB Cr. Misc. Bail 1348/11 Bharat Singh v. State of Raj. Tholia is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is inclined to grant t he present application. The court has also ta ken into consideration the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court SB Cr. Misc. Bail 1348/11 Bharat Singh v. State of Raj. in case of Siddharam Satlingppa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2011 (1) SCC, 694 . 7. In the event of the arrest of the applicant named Bharat Singh S/o Mangu Ram in connection with the FIR No. 160/2010 registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to t he satisfaction of the concerned trial court on the following conditions:- (a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigation Officer as and when required and shall cooperate wit h the investigation by the Investigation Officer ; (b) the applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; (c) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 SB Cr. Misc. Bail 1348/11 Bharat Singh v. State of Raj. to any police officer or temper with the evidence; (d) that the applicant shall attend the concerned court as and when directed and found necessary; (e) that the applicant shall not leave the territory of India without previous permission of the concerned trial court, and shall deposit the passport, if any, before the trial court; (f) the applicant shall furnish his present correct residential address alongwith the contact number before the trial court and shall also intimate the change, if any, which may take place in future to the trial court. (g) The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek for the remand to police custody, if found necessary from the connected court. Application allowed. *******