ORDER : 1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short), the applicants-accused have prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-63 of 2019 registered with Bopal Police Station, District Ahmedabad Rural, for offence under Sections 354A, 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It has been mainly alleged in the FIR that the first informant got married with applicant No. 3 on 14.12.2015 and started residing with her in-laws at Kadi. Thereafter, on 16.01.2016, the first informant and applicant No. 3 shifted to Ahmedabad. It is alleged in the FIR that whenever the first used to visit Kadi, applicant Nos.1 and 2 used to ask her to bring dowry from her parental house. It is further alleged in the FIR that when the accused persons realised that the first informant would not bring any money from her house, mental and physical harassment was caused to the first informant. It is also alleged in the FIR that applicant No. 2 used to molest the first informant and used to make depraved gestures towards her. The said incident was informed by the first informant to applicant No. 3- husband. However, applicant No. 3 did not pay any heed to the same and on the contrary, he had supported his father. It is alleged in the FIR that the first informant was driven out of her matrimonial house on 07.04.2019 and since then, she is residing at her parental house. Thereafter, on 06.10.2019, the accused persons visited the parental house of the first informant and threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, the FIR is registered against the applicants. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Y.S. Lakhani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Pragnesh M. Gandhi for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Savjani for the original first informant. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants mainly contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are false, fabricated and smacks of malice and the allegations pertaining to cruelty and dowry are general in nature. It is contended that the only dispute between applicant No. 3 husband and the first informant wife is with regard to the place of residence. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants mainly contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are false, fabricated and smacks of malice and the allegations pertaining to cruelty and dowry are general in nature. It is contended that the only dispute between applicant No. 3 husband and the first informant wife is with regard to the place of residence. It is submitted that the first informant is insisting that they should reside at Gandhinagar whereas applicant No. 3 insisted that the first informant wife should come to Kadi where the parents of applicant No. 3 reside. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate has referred the documentary evidence placed on record including the WhatsApp conversation exchanged between applicant No. 3 and the first informant and the letters written by applicant No. 3 as well as the first informant and, thereafter, contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR are prima-facie not believable and the applicants are falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 5. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required and the age of applicant No. 1, who is a lady accused, is fifty-nine years whereas the age of applicant No. 2 is sixty-one years. 6. It is further submitted that except alleged offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, all the other offences of the IPC are bailable offences and so far as offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, the same is punishable with three years imprisonment. 7. Lastly, it is contended that when the applicants are falsely implicated by filing the FIR in question, this Court may exercise discretion in their favour by enlarging them on anticipatory bail. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed this application and submitted that from reading the FIR, prima-facie case is made out against the applicants and, therefore, this Court may not exercise discretion in their favour. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Savjani appearing for the first informant has also opposed this application and contended that serious allegations are levelled against the applicants and, therefore, this application be dismissed. Learned advocate for the first informant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 07.12.2017 rendered by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14404 of 2017. Learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Savjani appearing for the first informant has also opposed this application and contended that serious allegations are levelled against the applicants and, therefore, this application be dismissed. Learned advocate for the first informant has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 07.12.2017 rendered by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14404 of 2017. It is submitted that in similar type of case, the Delhi High Court has rejected the application filed by the concerned accused and the said order was not interfered with by the Honourable Supreme Court. Learned advocate has placed on record a copy of the aforesaid order. 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 11. This Court has mainly considered following aspects: (a) applicant No. 1 is lady accused aged about fifty-nine years whereas applicant No. 2 is aged about sixty-one years. (b) I have also considered the material placed on record including the WhatsApp conversation exchanged between applicant No. 3 and the first informant as well as the letters written by the concerned parties. From the said material, it is revealed that prima-facie, the first informant is insisting that they should reside at Gandhinagar whereas applicant No. 3 is insisting that the first informant – wife should come to Kadi where applicant Nos.1 and 2 are residing. (c) after considering the material placed on record, if the allegations levelled against the applicants are examined, false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out. It is the specific contention of the applicants that the FIR in question is filed by the first informant with a view to pressurize the applicants and with malafide intention. (d) looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required and it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicants will not be available for the purpose of investigation or will not remain present at the time of trial. (e) I have also considered the order passed by the Delhi High Court, upon which, reliance is placed by the first informant. (e) I have also considered the order passed by the Delhi High Court, upon which, reliance is placed by the first informant. However, as observed hereinabove, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said order would not render any assistance to the learned advocate appearing for the first informant. (f) in this type of cases, powers under Section 438 of the Code are required to be excised and, hence, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants. 12. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 . 13. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I63 of 2019 registered with Bopal Police Station, District Ahmedabad Rural, on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required. (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 16.01.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change their residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders. (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week. (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week. (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 14. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The applicants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 15. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 16. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.