Allowed

Deepak @ Ambedkar Tandan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2023MCRCA/363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for two applicants charged with offences under Sections 494, 498A, and 498A IPC. The court noted the second applicant faced no dowry/cruelty allegations and allowed bail conditional on executing a bond and adhering to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed. Direction to execute personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Deepak @ Ambedkar Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Dowry and Cruelty | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 363 of 2023

¶5

Deepak @ Ambedkar Tandan S/o Nakesar Sachan, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Baradiya Vihar Mahatma Gandhi Nagar Gali No. 4 Pani Tanki Ke Pass, Puraina Amalidih, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶6

Barkaha Chowbe D/o Badari Prasad Chowbe, Aged About 34 Years, Gayatri Nagar, PS - Khamhardi Raipur, Tahsil and District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smt. Shivasini Tandon W/o Ambedkar Tandon, R/o Adile Chowk, Purani Basti Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Non-applicants

¶12

For Applicants – Ms Smita Jha, Advocate. For State – Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer. For Non-applicant No.2 – None, though served.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

07-09-2023

¶15

This application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Criminal Case No.1273/2015 registered at Police Station Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 494/34 of the IPC.

¶16

The facts of the present case are that, a complaint case was filed by non-

¶17

applicant No.2 for the commission of offences under Sections 494, 496, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC against the present applicants and two other accused persons, namely Chundi Bai and Ramesh Tandan. As per the complaint, applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 were married on 01.05.2002 and three children, aged about 12 years, 10 years and 8 years respectively were born from their wedlock. After the marriage, the applicants and other co-accused persons subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry and the applicant No.1 remarried to applicant No.2 on 06.10.2014. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba took cognizance and registered the complaint as Criminal Case

¶18

-2-

¶19

No.1273/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 494/34 of the IPC. Non-applicant No.2 was not appearing before the learned trial Court, therefore, the case was converted into the police case vide order dated 28.02.2022.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there are general allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the applicants and there is omnibus allegation against applicant No.1 that he has married to applicant No.2 despite subsistence of marriage with first wife. She would further submit that offence has been registered and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance on the basis of complaint. She would pray that the applicants may be enlarged on bail. She would also submit that in the criminal case there is no allegation against applicant No.2.

¶21

On the other hand learned counsel for the State would oppose. He would submit that there are allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the applicants, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶22

5 . Considering the fact that there is omnibus allegation against applicant No.1 that he performed remarriage despite subsistence of first marriage and there is no allegation with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry against applicant No.2, further, from the order sheets it appears that there was some settlement between the parties and thereafter non-applicant No.2 has not marked her appearance before the learned trial Court and also considering that the allegations made in the complaint case, the involvement of applicant No.2 in the offence alleged and that the applicant No.1 is a Government servant, I feel inclined to allow this application.

¶23

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that in the event of each of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the

¶24

-3-

¶25

concerned arresting officer, they shall be released on bail, on following conditions:-

¶26

(i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made hereinabove.

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

Aadil

Deepak @ Ambedkar Tandan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Ambedkar Tandan 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

Santosh Kumar Chandra Vs Smt. Sumitra Chandra

Mansoor Hussain Alvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nimish Sunil Agarwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Gurushree Buildcon Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (1)

M/S Gurushree Industries Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Gurushree Minerals Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax