Allowed

Arun Das Manikpuri and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2017MCRCA/8/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of Section 498-A/34 IPC offences. Citing Arnesh Kumar (2014), the court viewed the dispute as primarily domestic and non-serious, directing release on bail upon execution of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail conditioned upon furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety and adhering to standard bail terms.

Arun Das Manikpuri and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Domestic Violence | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC (A) No. 8 of 2017

¶5

Arun Das Manikpuri S/o Garib Das Manikpuri Aged About 27 Years R/o Basantpur, Ward 46, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Rupesh Das Manikpuri S/o Garib Das Manikpuri Aged About 30 Years R/o Basantpur, Ward 46, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

-----Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (CG).

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicants : Shri BD Guru, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Ashok Swarnakar, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

04/05/2017

¶15

The applicants have filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.291 of 2016, registered at police station, Basantpur, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC.

¶16

Prosecution story is that, the applicant No.2 is the Husband of complainant and applicant No.1 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. The allegation against the applicants is that the applicants as well as their family members have ill treated the complainant and have subjected her to cruelty both physically as well as mentally and based upon which she has lodged a complaint on 14.09.2016.

¶17

A perusal of complaint would show that the main dispute between the

¶18

¶19

applicants and their family members with the complainant was that of not permitting her to pursue her college study at Rajnandgaon. All other allegations put forth by the complainant seems to be ancillary and incidentally and not of very serious in nature and more particularly keeping in view the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2014 (8) SCC 273, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them and they shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:

¶20

That, the accused/applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶21

The accused/applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

The accused/applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

¶23

The applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶24

Certified copy, as per rules.

¶25

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶26

inder

Arun Das Manikpuri and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Das Manikpuri and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuruddha Lal Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Rituraj Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation

Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Gagan Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Sangeeta Chandrakar Vs Steel Authority Of India

Smt. Sunita Shrivastava Vs District Judge