Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 461 (CHH)

Manohar v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-12-15

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. By way of the instant application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 186/2013 registered at Police Station City Kotwail, District Bilaspur for offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with Section 34, facultative Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of Smt. Saumya Adwani, the deceased was solemnized with Rakesh Adwani on 22-04-2012. It is the case of the prosecution that Immediately after the marriage, the applicants along with co-accused Rakesh Adwani started harassing the deceased and treated her with cruelty demanding dowry. On account of torture and humiliation, the deceased committed suicide on 10-06-2013 by hanging. On a report of the father of the deceased, FIR was registered and investigation was commenced into the offence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that upon relying the memo written by father of the deceased, namely, Radhakishan to the Station House Officer, City Kotwali, Bilaspur wherein it is stated that dowry was demanded from the deceased by her' husband, namely, Rakesh Adwani and his brother Vinod Adwani and further submits that the present applicants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased aged about 57 and 48 years, respectively, are innocent and were not involved in the offence as no allegation is levelled against them in the aforesaid memo. Therefore, they may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposing the application for anticipatory bail, would submit that on the basis of written report lodged by Radhakishan, father of the deceased, FIR was lodged in which he named Rakesh Adwani, Vinod Adwani and applicant No. 1. Manohar Adwani and it had been informed by his daughter that on 10-06-2013, her life was in danger and Rakesh Adwani, Vinod Adwani and Manohar Adwani will kill her and thereafter, one more report which has been referred by the applicants. He further points out that Varsha Ramani, prosecution witness has lodged a report on 06-09-2013 that applicant No. 1 and some other persons had threatened her on 05-09-2013, by unauthorizedly entering into her house and directed her not to name other co-accused persons except Rakesh Adwani. He further points out that Varsha Ramani, prosecution witness has lodged a report on 06-09-2013 that applicant No. 1 and some other persons had threatened her on 05-09-2013, by unauthorizedly entering into her house and directed her not to name other co-accused persons except Rakesh Adwani. Thus, the applicants are persons of the means and it would not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to them. 4. The fact remains that in the case, the deceased Saumya Adwani had died by hanging within 1 1/2 year from the date of marriage in her matrimonial house. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Samundar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1987 SC 737 , wherein it has been held thus: "The widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded. The High Court has granted anticipatory bail in such matter. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. The matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the same on the basis of the Material before the Court at the point of time of their arrest in case they were arrested, it was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature." Further, in the matter of Raghuvir Saran Agarwal Vs. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature." Further, in the matter of Raghuvir Saran Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others (1998) 8 SCC 617 , it has also been held that: "We are surprised, not a little, that anticipatory bail has been granted in a matter where dowry death is alleged to have taken place and the investigation is in progress without assigning any reason whatsoever, if the provision in regard to grant of anticipatory bail is invoked at a stage when the investigation is in progress and the court is unaware of the seriousness of the matter. It would hamper the investigation itself, in any case, if the High Court felt inclined to grant anticipatory bail, it should have stated the reasons for exercising that jurisdiction. Otherwise every person against whom a first information report is lodged alleging a serious crime will rush to the High Court or the Sessions Court that the case may be considered and obtain anticipatory bail rendering the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of arrest, etc. redundant, if the High Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, it should indicate the reasons why it has exercised power in cases where if the allegations are true, some serious crime could be stated to have been committed." 5. In the matter of Manoj Agrawal and etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2003 Cri. L.J. 3519, this High Court has held that: "Now this power of granting 'anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power is to be exercised. And this power being rather of an unusual nature, it is entrusted to the higher echelons of judicial service, namely a Court of Session and the High Court. And this power being rather of an unusual nature, it is entrusted to the higher echelons of judicial service, namely a Court of Session and the High Court. It is a power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence in respect of which the power can be exercised by the appropriate Court." Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the death which occurred within one year and three months from the date of marriage, further taking into consideration that present applicants are not cooperating in the investigation as is apparent from the case diary, that the applicants are absconding, there is no substantial progress in the investigation, further taking into consideration the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases and the manner in which one of the accused have threatened the prosecution witness, I do not consider it's fit case to release the applicants on bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the instant bail application stands rejected.