Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 225 (MP)

Deepak Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2014-02-19

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of the CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2014 registered at P.S. Moti Nagar, District Sagar for the offences punishable under sections 328, 498A/34 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that appliant No.1 is husband and applicant No.2 is father-in-law of the complainant. Complainant Ritu Tiwari said to have lodged the report against these applicants with the allegations that the applicants were harassing her for demanding of dowry. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that previously applicants tried to sought out the matter through Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. Mother-in-law of complainant Ritu Tiwari also lodged a report before S.P. Sagar with a prayer that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. He further submitted that it is a matrimonial case, where in the event of arrest, the possibility of compromise between the parties, if any, will be diminished., It is, therefore, prayed that applicants be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application. 6. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is fit case to release the applicants 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 applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. twenty five thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. 7. 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 CrPC. 8. 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, this order shall remain in force till the end of the trial.