Allowed

Toman Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2023MCRCA/105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh granted anticipatory bail to applicant charged with offences under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC. Court noted FIR was lodged after issuance of notice in pending restitution conjugal rights proceedings and father-in-law already secured bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and adherence to specific conditions regarding trial cooperation and conduct.

Toman Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Domestic Violence | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No.105 of 2023

¶5

Toman Nirmalkar S/o Tularam Nirmalkar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Devada, Tehsil Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Women Police Station Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶10

09.03.2023

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.125/2022, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Station Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg (CG), for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC.

¶13

As per prosecution story, the applicant and the complainant were married on 28.04.2017 and there is one daughter from their wedlock born on 02.05.2018. On 19.03.2022, the complainant left her matrimonial house and since then, she is staying separately.

¶14

¶15

On 24.09.2022, the present applicant moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights which is still pending. On 20.12.2022, the complainant lodged an FIR making allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty against the present applicant and her father-in-law. Consequently, the police registered offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on same set of facts and allegations, father-in-law of the complainant has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Court below. He would further submit that after five years of marriage, the complainant has lodged a false complaint, whereas, there was neither demand of dowry nor she was subjected to cruelty. He would further submit that on 24.09.2022, the present applicant preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and notice was issued to the complainant and thereafter, she lodged FIR against the present applicant. He would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State would oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Considering the fact that marriage was solemnized in the year 2017 and after five years of marriage, FIR has been lodged after receiving notice, which was issued in proceeding filed under

¶19

¶20

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the present applicant. Further considering the fact that on same set of facts and allegations, father of the present applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Court below and there are general allegations against the present applicant. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The MCRCA application is allowed.

¶21

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned investigating officer as and when required.

¶23

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

The observation made in the course of this order or only for

¶27

¶28

considering the case of the applicant. The concerned Trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observation made in the course of this order.

¶29

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

Rekha

Toman Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toman Nirmalkar 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

Yadurai Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammed Sabir Razavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tarun Kumar Dutta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santu Malik Vs State of Chhattisgarh