Allowed

Shrawan Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jul 2022MCRCA/210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges under Sections 498-A, 494, 406, 313, and 394 IPC. The court noted the long marital history and lack of recent quarrels before authorizing involvement in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions to appear for interrogation and not interfere with investigation.

Shrawan Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 210 of 2022

¶5

Shrawan Kumar Yadav son of Ramsewak Yadav, aged about 45 years, resident of behind Nagar Palika, Ward No. 3, Nandini Ahiwara, TahsilDhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police StationMahila Thana, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶9

		---- State/Non-Applicant
For Applicant For Non-Applicant/State For Objector	: : :	Shri Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Government Advocate Shri Anand Shukla with Shri Aditya Tiwari, Advocates

¶10

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board

¶11

19.07.2022

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 85/2021, registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for the offfence punishable under Sections 498-A, 313, 494, 394 and 406 of IPC.

¶14

The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant namely Smt. Sharda Matiyara lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Durg, alleging therein that the love marriage of the applicant and the complainant was solemnized on 04.03.1999 and since marriage, she used to live with the applicant at Bhilai. In the year 2018, the complainant came to know that the applicant has also performed marriage with one Vimla Yadav without any knowledge of the complainant. It is further alleged that there is no child from the wedlock of applicant and the complainant and she was carrying pregnancy four times, but the applicant got her miscarriage. It is alleged that the applicant has also

¶15

¶16

taken money of Rs.40 lacs from the complainant. Hence, on report being lodged to the above effect, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that the marriage of the applicant and the complainant was solemnized in the year 1999. Thereafter, they were living together peacefully and subsequently relationship between them became strange. Therefore, the complainant lodged a report in the year 2021 against the applicant with allegation that the applicant were giving physical and mental torture to her on account of demand of dowry; he has cheated the complainant/wife and also committed breach of trust by taking amount of Rs.40 lacs from her; the applicant made to undergo an abortion against her wishes and the applicant got married to another girl and having children. He further submits that out of offences which have been levelled against the applicant, offence under Section 494 is bailable and other offences are triable Magistrate. Looking to the long marriage period, it is dispute between the husband and wife, on being found that the applicant has performed marry to another women. So far as Section 313 IPC is concerned, it states that:-

¶18

313. Causing miscarriage without woman's consent. – Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be laible to fine.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that if assuming the case of prosecution, abortion took place in the years 1999, 2003, 2012 & 2014, even the last abortion was in the year 2014 and after the lapse of seven years, it cannot be said that abortion was carried without will and consent of the complainant. The

¶20

¶21

applicant is resident of behind Nagar Palika, Ward No. 3, Nandini Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg and if the applicant may be granted benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C., he is ready to abide all the conditions imposed by this Court.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation against the present applicant is serious and he has cheated his wife by marrying the other woman and kept secret to his first wife. She submits that certain amount was taken by the applicant from his first wife with trust that he will start for transport business, but he did not start the same, therefore, he committed offence under Section 406 of IPC. She further submits that though the last abortion was carried out in the 2014, however, this fact would be considered only at the time of trial, but the applicant be required for custodial interrogation.

¶23

Learned counsel for the objector vehemently objected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made by learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the applicant got married with the complainant in the year 1999 and after two years he got married with another woman and kept secret from his first wife. He submits that after 18 years the complainant came to know about the applicant got married with another woman, then the applicant was starting to harass the complainant. Learned counsel for the objector adopted the other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶25

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by the parties, the nature of allegation made against the applicant, looking to the long period of marriage life of the complainant with the applicant from the year 1999 to 2018, there was no quarrel arose between them and also looking to the documents annexed with the present bail application, last abortion took in the year 2014 and report lodged by the complainant against the applicant in the year 2021, after a lapse of time, the

¶26

¶27

allegation of the above offences under the IPC were made against applicant/husband by the complainant/wife, and that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or absconding, if custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he may be directed to join investigation and conclusion of the trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that benefit Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applicant.

¶28

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶29

i. 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court or Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

¶30

ii. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

¶31

iii. he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, and

¶32

iv. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶33

v. he will appear before the Investigating Agency/Officer on 05.08.2022 for cooperating in the investigation.

¶34

10.It is made clear that the above observation is only for the decision making of the present application and will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. If any of the conditions above is violated, the State/victim will be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶37

vatti

Shrawan Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iltab @ Iltab Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjeet Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohanlal Nagarchi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhu Ram Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh