Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 651 (RAJ)

Anupam v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-02-25

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. 11/2018 of Police Station Salasar, District Churu for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 328, 307 and 120-B IPC. They have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations against the petitioners of demand of dowry, harassment and attempt to kill the complainant are false. It is submitted that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 on 19.11.2013 and thereafter, the complainant left with the petitioner No. 1 in January 2014 for Tokyo, Japan where the petitoner No. 1 was serving as Jr. Associate in JP Morgan Company. It is submitted that later on when petitioner No. 1 was transferred to Singapore, the complainant accompanied him and lived with him there up to July 2017. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the allegation against the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is clear that his role has not been specified as to when and where he demanded dowry or harrased the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in Mumbai, whereas the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant used to reside abroad. It is further submitted that though the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 visited Tokyo and Singapore once or twice to meet the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant but they never demanded dowry or harassed the complainant at Tokyo and Singapore and the allegation of this effect are absolutely false. 5. It is submitted that though the complainant alleged that the petitioner No. 3 administered Alprex to her in huge quantity on 25.10.2017, however, the complaint in relation to the alleged incident is filed for the first time on 21.12.2017 and FIR was lodged on 1.2.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that as a matter of fact the complainant attempted to commit suicide while administering the Alprex Tablets and then the petitioner No. 2 informed the uncle of the complainant, who is also living in Bidasar and thereafter she was admitted in hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that as a matter of fact the complainant attempted to commit suicide while administering the Alprex Tablets and then the petitioner No. 2 informed the uncle of the complainant, who is also living in Bidasar and thereafter she was admitted in hospital. It is also submitted that even from the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner No. 2 left for Jaipur in the afternoon on 25.10.2017 and thereafter, the complainant was admitted in the hospital. Learned counsel has submitted that there was some dispute between the complainant and the petitioner No. 1, however, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have falsely been implicated in this case only because they are parents of the petitoner No. 1. It is further submitted that though the allegation is levelled that petitioner No. 3 had attempted to kill the complainant by administering her Alprex but there is no evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation to suggest that the complainant was treated for administering poison. Learned counsel further submitted that on the day of incident, the family members of the complainant shifted her to Jaipur and she remained in the hospital for two or three days and even after discharge from the hospital, no complaint was filed and after delay of around two months this complaint was filed. It is also submitted that ever as per the complaint, the petitioner No. 1 was not present on 25.10.2017 at Bidasar and he was in Singapore. It is further submitted that all the petitioners have joined the investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer for more than one occasion and the police have also thoroughly interrogated them and therefore, the petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation any more, hence they may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail to them. 6. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel have opposed the bail application. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that since petitioner No. 1 is not in India the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC is not even maintainable. Learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of Kerala High Court rendered in Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2011(14) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Kerala) . 8. So far as the petitioner Nos. Learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of Kerala High Court rendered in Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police reported in 2011(14) Criminal Court Cases 366 (Kerala) . 8. So far as the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have argued that in the FIR specific allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment have been levelled against them. It is also submitted that petitioner No. 3 administered poison to the complainant on 25.10.2017 at Bidasar and immediately, she left for Jaipur and not even enquired of her well being and this fact itself is sufficient to show that she knew that by administering Alprex in huge quantity, the complainant would certainly die. It is further submitted that the complainant was admitted in Jaipur Hospital for so many days where she got treatment and after discharge from the hospital she took rest at her parental house and thereafter the complaint against the petitioners have been filed. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that during the course of investigation, police have found the allegation of attempting to kill the complainant proved against the petitoner No. 3. It is also submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment are also proved against the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that petitioners through their counsel gave an undertaking before this court on 06.02.2019 that the petitioners would remain present before this court on 18.2.2019 but they failed to remain present before this Court and hence taking into consideration, overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 11. As per the admitted facts, marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant was solemnized in the year 2013 precisely on 19.11.2013 at Salasar, District Churu. In January 2014, the complainant started living with the petitioner No. 1 at Tokyo Japan and thereafter she lived with him in Singapore till July 2017 whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in Mumbai but they have visited on more than one occasion at Tokyo and Singapore. 12. In January 2014, the complainant started living with the petitioner No. 1 at Tokyo Japan and thereafter she lived with him in Singapore till July 2017 whereas the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in Mumbai but they have visited on more than one occasion at Tokyo and Singapore. 12. So far as the allegation against the petitioner No. 3 of administering poison to the complainant on 25.10.2017 is concerned, the police have failed to collect any evidence of this effect that the complainant was treated for administering poison either at Bidasar or at Jaipur. The complaint regarding the incident took place on 25.10.2017 and earlier incidents, either took place at Abroad or in India, was filed in December 2017 only. The allegation against the petitioner No. 2 are not specific. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have also joined the investigation on several occasions and were interrogated by Investigating Officer in detail. 13. So far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, at present he is in abroad and it is not clear that when he is returning from abroad. The Kerala High Court in the case of Souda Beevi (supra) has clearly held that a person who is not in India or who does not intend to visit India soon, cannot conveniently remain abroad and move an application for anticipatory bail before this Court in India. Taking into consideration and over all facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, his anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed. 14. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to accused petitioner No. 2-Manoharlal S/o Late Rameshwar Lal and petitioner No. 3-Smt. Durlabha W/o Manoharlal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 15. 14. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to accused petitioner No. 2-Manoharlal S/o Late Rameshwar Lal and petitioner No. 3-Smt. Durlabha W/o Manoharlal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 15. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by petitioner No. 1- Anupam S/o Manoharlal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected and the bail application preferred by petitioner No. 2-Manoharlal S/o Late Rameshwar Lal and petitioner No. 3-Smt. Durlabha W/o Manoharlal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner No. 2-Manoharlal S/o Late Rameshwar Lal and petitioner No. 3-Smt. Durlabha W/o Manoharlal in FIR No. 11/2018 of Police Station Salasar, District Churu they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.