Allowed

Smt. Shivkumari Khandekar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2020MCRCA/1068/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, heard an ANC on behalf of three applicants apprehending arrest in a dowry harassment FIR. Considering the prosecutrix's statement of suicide attempt by her husband and disputes with the husband, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and abiding by conditions of appearing for interrogation and trial.

Smt. Shivkumari Khandekar and Others Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 1068 of 2020

¶5

Smt. Shivkumari Khandekar W/o Shri Mahadev Khandekar Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Prem Nagar Dipka Police Station Dipka District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶6

Kumari Rimpa Khandekar D/o Shri Mahadev Khandekar Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Prem Nagar Dipka Police Station Dipka District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶7

Kumari Leena Khandekar D/o Shri Mahdev Khandekar Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Prem Nagar Dipka Police Station Dipka District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Masturi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Applicants : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For State : Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Adv. Gen.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

01/12/2020

Heard.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.278/2020 registered at Police Station – Masturi, District – Bilaspur CG) for alleged commission of offences under Section 498 (A), 294, 506/34 of IPC.

¶18

Prosecution case is that the applicant along with co-accused – husband of the prosecutrix, subjected her to torture and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.

¶19

Learned senior counsel for the applicants would submit that the allegations are against the applicant made by the prosecutrix out of her disgust and revengeful attitude of involving each and every member of the family because she had dispute with her husband and she was asked to leave the matrimonial house and she was

¶20

¶21

residing in her parental house where she attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl tablets. It is submitted that the applicant No.1– mother-in-law resides in Korba with her own husband and the sister-in-laws are students and all of them are falsely implicated. He submits that looking to the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the allegations are mainly against the husband, in view of what has been stated by the prosecutrix, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail as they are not likely to abscond nor in a position to adversely affect the progress of investigation.

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the prosecutrix had attempted to commit suicide and at the stage, when she was admitted in the hospital, a dying declaration was recorded which shows that the prosecutrix has stated that she was being harassed and tortured by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband. Later on, the husband of the prosecutrix had become extremely cruel and finally asked her to leave the matrimonial house as she was unable to conceive child. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶23

From the FIR and the dying declaration which was recorded, it appears that during the allegations of harassment and cruelty, there is no specific mention of a particular incident of assault. FIR came to be lodged when the prosecutrix attempted to commit suicide and her dying declaration was recorded. She had been staying in the parental house and according to her, she was shunted out of the matrimonial house by her husband by stating that she is unable to conceive and therefore, she may leave the matrimonial house, go and commit suicide. Applicant No.1 is motherin-law who is aged 52 years.

¶24

Considering the over all circumstances and submission, the applicants are granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶25

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 personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and he shall abide by all the following terms and conditions:-

¶26

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that he 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.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

Certified copy as per rules.

¶32

Sd/- ( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ) Judge

¶33

Deepti

Smt. Shivkumari Khandekar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shivkumari Khandekar and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh @ Preetam Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Kiran Miri and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Wilson Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh