Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 332 (MP)

DINESH KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-03-10

N.K.GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Sushil Tiwari, counsel for the applicants. Shri G. S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 4348/2011, an application for urgent hearing. 3. Since case diary is available, application is allowed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in the Crime No. 46/2011 registered police Station Kotwali, District Umariya for offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant is the wife of applicant No. 1. She left the house of her husband by her own whim because the applicant No. 1 is giving some part of his salary to applicant No. 4, his mother. The applicant No. 1 is a Government servant. The applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them. The applicant No. 4 is an old woman aged about 65 year of age. At present, the complainant is residing with her parents and there is no possibility of any further harassment to her. Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Panel lawyer for the State opposes the application. 8. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Consequently this application of applicants under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code is hereby allowed. 9. It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicants Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Lalita Pandey and Sushila Bai, each shall be released on bail on each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. 10. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 11. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. 10. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. 11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2011 SC 312 , it is directed that this order shall remain in force till the end of the trial, if the applicants furnish the bail bonds and surety bonds before the committal Court/trial Court at the time of filing of challan as per the terms and conditions as mentioned above. 12. However, it is made clear that if the committal Court/trial Court issues an arrest warrant against the applicants due to his absence before that Court, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective. 13. Certified copy as per rules.