Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 657 (MP)

Prashant Gupta v. State of M. P.

2013-05-17

D.K.Paliwal

body2013
ORDER 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.15/13 registered at Mahila Police Station, Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and in the proceeding before the Family Court the complainant wife Smt. Neha Gupta appeared for counseling on 18.5.2012, thereafter false report has been lodged. It is further submitted that the co-accused Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Pramila Gupta have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2013, passed in M.cr.c. No. 2605/2013 and the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Pramila Gupta, hence on the ground of parity, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that the present applicant is the husband of the complainant and therefore, case of the applicant is not similar to the co-accused who have been enlarged on anticipatory bail and submits that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 21.6.2010 with the complainant Smt. Neha Gupta and the allegation of demand of Rs.25 Lacs has been levelled against the applicant and his mother, sister and brother-in-law. 5. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties along with the nature of allegation made against the applicant and the fact that co-accused Ashok Kumar Gupta and Smt. Pramila Gupta have been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 3.5.2013, passed in MCrC No.2605/2013, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of CrPC. 6. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others JT 2010 (13) SC 247, it is directed that this order shall remain in force till the end of trial, if the applicant furnishes the bail bond and surety bond before the committal Court/trial Court at the time of filing of challan as per the terms and conditions as mentioned above. However, the public prosecutor or complainant would be at liberty to move the same Court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of bail any time if liberty granted by the Court is misused. It is also clear that if the committal Court/trial Court issues an arrest warrant against the applicant due to his absence before the Court, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective.