Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Tandon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40309 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SANJAY KUMAR TANDON S/O LATE SHRI K.L.
TANDON, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: POLICY AGENT F-3 SWAPNIL
APARTMENT TRILANGA BHOPAL M.P. UID NO.
653027464445 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SACHIN
NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SHAHAPURA DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANTOSH YADAV, DY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
(SHRI ANKIT SAXENA, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
T h e applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.430/2022 registered at Police Station Shahapura, Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304B, 34 of IPC.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. He is maternal uncle-in-law (Mama Signature Not Verified Sasur) of the deceased. He submits that applicant is not resided with the Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/16/2022 6:48:30 PM 2 deceased and even at the time of incidence he was not in the same house where deceased has committed suicide. He further submits that deceased was suffering from some mental ailment and was under treatment in Bansal Hospital, Bhopal. The husband of the deceased was providing her treatment and there was no bitterness between them. He further submits that false case of demand of dowry has been made by the family members of the deceased, because it has now become a fashion that after such an incident, the parents of the deceased make false allegations. He submits that the photographs which he has filed along with this application clearly indicate that the deceased was never in trouble and she could not have been harassed by the present applicant. He submits that present applicant is maternal uncle-in-law and was residing separately from the deceased. He has no reason to harass the deceased and make demand of dowry. He submits that applicant and prosecutrix have entered into love marriage and the family of the husband of the prosecutrix was economically sound and even at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry. He submits that normally in love marriages there is no chance of expectation of any dowry. On these grounds he prays to grant benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C to the applicant.
Per contra, counsel for State has opposed the bail application stating that there is direct allegation against the present applicant that he used to harass the deceased and pressurizing her for bringing dowry from her parents. He further submits that from the record, it is clear that the applicant was residing in the same apartment where deceased and her husband were residing, therefore, merely because he was residing in different flats it cannot be said that he cannot make demand of dowry. He has read over the case diary and statement of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/16/2022 6:48:30 PM 3 witnesses who very categorically alleged against the present applicant. It is further submitted that on earlier occassion also dowry was demanded by the husband and other family members and amount was also paid by the father of the deceased.
Counsel for objector has also supported the stand taken by counsel for State. He submits that present applicant is main accused. He used to provoke the husband and his sister (mother in law) of the deceased for demanding dowry, due to which deceased has committed suicide.
Considering the submissions made by counsel for parties and perusal of case diary, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C to the applicant, therefore, this application is hereby rejected.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 9/16/2022 6:48:30 PM