Allowed

Santosh Gupta @ Golu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2017MCRCA/1312/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order grants anticipatory bail to an applicant facing charges of IPC Section 498A and Section 34. The court found the allegations to be omnibus and general, favoring the grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to execute personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum.

Santosh Gupta @ Golu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRCA No. 1312 of 2016

¶4

Santosh Gupta @ Golu s/o. Late Shri Shivmurat Prasad Gupta, aged about 30 years, r/o. Behind Shobha Kirana Stores, in front of Halka Talaba, Bhathagaon, PS Tikrapara, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Moole No. 9009135198

¶5

Applicant

¶6

¶7

State of CG through SHO PS Tikrapara, District Raipur (CG)

¶8

Respondent

¶9

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

10-03-2017

¶13

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 412 of 2016 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for offence punishable under Section 498 (A)/34 of the IPC, the applicant has preferred the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

As per case of the prosecution, on 25-9-2016 a report was made by the complainant Pooja Jaiswal that she was married to the present applicant on 1-12-2014 and subsequently she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry by the present applicant and other co-accused persons. She was also assaulted many times for demand of dowry and thereby the aforesaid offence has been committed.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that after report was made, counseling took place wherein the complainant failed to join the company of the applicant and on trivial issue a report was made against the applicant and thereafter, she herself deserted the applicant and filed an application for grant of maintenance wherein the applicant is paying Rs.1,000/- per month to the complainant as maintenance, therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances, the applicant may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and documents.

¶19

Perused the report of the complainant wherein omnibus and general allegations have been attributed to the present applicant.

¶20

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into nature of allegations which are omnibus and general allegations, I am inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶22

¶23

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶24

(ii) that the applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

¶25

(iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶26

(iv) the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶29

Raju

Santosh Gupta @ Golu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Gupta @ Golu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Agrawal Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Seraj Ahmad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Puja Smit Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Adiram Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jwala Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mohar Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh