The Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners facing charges of dowry harassment and criminal intimidation. The bail was allowed subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8509/2019
Neha Gupta D/o Sh. Anand Gupta, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 92D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 110007
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8510/2019 Parul Gupta W/o Sh. Anand Gupta, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 92D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 110007
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D.L. Rawla, for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
13/09/2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.106/2019 of Women Police Station Sriganganagar for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 342 of
(2 of 4)
[CRLMB-8509/2019]
IPC. They have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that from the bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that complainant has alleged that dowry items given in her marriage by her parents were taken into custody by her mother-in-law. It is submitted that allegations of harassing and assaulting the complainant are against husband of the complainant and not against the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners are sisters-in-law of the complainant and only for this reason, they have been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that petitioner Parul Gupta is married to Anand Gupta and used to reside in Mumbai, however, later on, she shifted to Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and it is wrong to say that she ever harassed the complainant or demanded dowry from her and her family members. It is submitted that petitioner Neha Gupta is working in a NGO and she also never demanded dowry or harassed the complainant. It is submitted that omnibus allegation regarding demand of dowry has been levelled against the petitioner Neha Gupta and no specific instance has been mentioned in the complaint by the complainant regarding petitioner Neha Gupta. It is also submitted that petitioners had joined the investigation pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 06.08.2019 and also returned gift items which were received by them at the time of marriage of the complainant and brother of the petitioners Bhavit Gupta. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the facts and
(3 of 4)
[CRLMB-8509/2019]
circumstances of the case, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail applications and submitted that the complainant has levelled specific allegations against the petitioners regarding demand of dowry and harassment. It is also submitted that allegation of taking dowry items at the time of marriage of the complainant was against petitioner Neha Gupta and her mother. It is also submitted that though the petitioners had joined the investigation but they have not returned all gift items given to them from the complainant side at the time of marriage of the complainant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case diary, particularly the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners – Neha Gupta D/o Sh. Anand Gupta and Parul Gupta W/o Sh. Anand Gupta in FIR No.106/2019 of Women Police Station Sriganganagar they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-
(4 of 4)
[CRLMB-8509/2019]
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
69-Taruna/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.106/2019.
Whether the allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the sisters-in-law require denial of bail.
Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with sureties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neha Gupta D/o Sh. Anand Gupta
Parul Gupta W/o Sh. Anand Gupta
State Of Rajasthan
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
