Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 471 (MP)

Sameer Garg v. State of M. P.

2017-04-07

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2017
ORDER : Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. P. Chadar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Sameer Garg in Crime No. 77/2017, registered by P.S. Umariya, District Umariya under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution case, the negotiation for the marriage of petitioner Sameer Garg and deceased Anamika Pandey had taken place; however, the family members of the petitioner were demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash and a car in marriage. It appears that probably meanwhile, the petitioner and the deceased were also speaking to each other on telephone; however, due to demand of dowry, the negotiation failed. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 1-12-2016. She left behind a suicide note, wherein it was stated that now that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased would not be taking place, the petitioner should be ashamed of himself and disclose the truth after the death of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Engineering Graduate and is searching job. If he is arrested, his future would be adversely affected. There was no relationship between the petitioner and the deceased. The suicide took place on 1-12-2016 and the FIR was lodged on 9-2-2017. There are no clear allegations made by the prosecution on the basis of which it can be presumed that the petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased; therefore, it has been prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application on the ground that the deceased left behind a suicide note, wherein she has clear blamed the petitioner for her suicide. There are also call details about the talks between the deceased and the petitioner; therefore, it has prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail be not granted. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that; 1. it is not the case of the prosecution that there was some engagement, which was broken off by the petitioner; 2. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that; 1. it is not the case of the prosecution that there was some engagement, which was broken off by the petitioner; 2. the only tangible allegation is that the family members of the petitioner were demanding dowry from the family of the deceased; 3. the suicide took place on 1-12-2016 and the First Information Report was lodged on 9-2-2017; 6. In aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Sameer Garg is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Certified copy as per rules.