Allowed

Prabhu Ram Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jul 2022MCRCA/354/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to aged applicants fearing arrest for dowry harassment, relying on Arunesh Kumar principles, circumstances of separate residences, government service, and lack of risk of tampering.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed; arrestees shall be released on firming a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of Rs. 25,000 subject to conditions.

Prabhu Ram Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. (A) No. 354 of 2022

¶5

Prabhu Ram Jain, S/o Late Shri Brij Lal Jain, Aged about 58 years, R/o House No. 340/11, Rawatpura Nagar, Near Halka Talab, P.S. Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Smt. Uma Jain, W/o Shri Prabhu Ram Jain, Aged about 56 years, R/o House No. 340/11, Rawatpura Nagar, Near Halka Talab, P.S. Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

---- Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationGariyaband, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶10

---- State/Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicants : Shri Ishan Verma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board

¶13

19.07.2022

¶14

Applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 47/2022, registered at Police Station – Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offfence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC.

¶15

It is stated that vide order dated 11.03.2022, the coordinate bench of this Court considering the principles and observations laid down in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 granted adinterim anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶16

As per prosecution case, the marriage of complainant namely Smt. Durgesh Sinha and co-accused/husband namely Kishore Kumar Jain was solemnized on 09.12.2020. The complainant has lodged a written complaint against the present applicants (father-in-law & mother-in-law) and her husband alleging

¶17

¶18

that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by them for demand of dowry.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that applicants are in-laws of the complainant and are residing at Raipur and the complainant is residing at Kanker. He further submits that the marriage of the complainant took place in the year 2020 with co-accused/husband, after the marriage, some disputes arose between them and on account of the said disputes, the complainant roped the present applicants in the crime in question. He also submits that the present applicants are aged persons i.e. 56 & 58 years & are government servants and if the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they are ready to abide all the conditions imposed by this Court and there is no likelihood of the applicants tampering with the prosecution evidence or absconding and trial of the case is likely to take some time for its final disposal. Therefore, the applicants be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there are serious allegations against the applicants and co-accused/husband as per statement of the complainant. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. may not be extended to the applicants.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the applicants are aged persons and are residing separately at Raipur and the complainant is residing at Kanker, nature of allegation levelled against the applicants, further considering the fact that the applicants are government servants and that there is no likelihood of the applicants tampering with the prosecution evidence or absconding, no custodial interrogation of the applicants is

¶23

¶24

required as admitted by both the counsel and conclusion of the trial may take some time, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of each of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them 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:-

¶26

i. they 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

iv. they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶30

It is made clear that the above observations is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and it will not affect the trial/investigation.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶33

vatti

Prabhu Ram Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Ram Jain 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

Iltab @ Iltab Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjeet Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohanlal Nagarchi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh