Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2016
MCRC-94-2016
(GHANSHYAM TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
27-01-2016
Shri Naman Nagrath, learned senior counsel with Shri Sunil Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajnish Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri A. M. Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Shri Niranjan Pathak, learned counsel for objector Raj Kumar Pathak. Heard on I.A. Nos.511/2016 and 1828/2016, which are applications moved on behalf of the objector and the applicants respectively for taking additional documents on record in support of their respective cases.
On due consideration, both the I.As. are allowed and the documents annexed therewith are taken on record. Heard arguments on the bail application.
Perused case diary and the entire material on record. This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in crime no.1322/2015 registered at Police Station Garha, Jabalpur, against them and their son/co-accused Ajay for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
As per the prosecution, engagement of the applicants' son/co- accused Ajay with Gauri, the informant's daughter, had taken place on 11.6.2015 and their marriage was to be solemnized on 6.12.2015. In the meantime, the applicants and the co-accused demanded Maruti Swift car in dowry from the informant. Unable to meet their demand, the applicants had broken off the engagement. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that applicant Ghanshyam is a Government servant and that applicant Deepa is an housewife. He further submits that the engagement had been called off on account of some other reasons but the informant has hidden the real facts by superimposing the allegations of demand of dowry. He further submits that the applicants' son has been missing since 11.11.2015. He further submits that looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants, their custodial interrogations are not required. He lastly submits that the applicants are permanent residents of Jabalpur city and that they do not have any criminal antecedents. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Learned senior counsel for the objector has strongly opposed the prayer. Referring to various documents, he submits that the engagement was cancelled because the informant was not able to meet their demand of giving Maruti Swift car in dowry. Learned Panel Lawyer has also opposed the prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. The applicants are directed to join immediately in the investigation of the case and the Investigating Officer is directed to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 2014 Page 2756 SC) with regard to the provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to the arrest. He is also directed that the arrest of the applicants be effected by him only when their custodial interrogations are necessary and before arresting them, he would mention in the case diary all the reasons which necessitate their arrest.
With this observations, the application stands finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE