Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 1054
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
Misc. Criminal Case No.44799/2018
Ramesh Kumar Choubey
Vs.
State of M.P.
14 .11.2018
Shri Anil Khare, Senior counsel with Shri Prakash
Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2.
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Ramesh Kumar Choubey in Crime No.442/2018 registered by P.S. Panagar, District- Jabalpur under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per the prosecution case as reflected in the first information report lodged by victim Mridula, who married petitioner Ramesh Kumar on 10.2.2018 at Singrauli, at the time of marriage, her father had given Rs.15,00,000/- in cash, two gold chains, three rings, clothes and other household items, in dowry. A day after the marriage, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started to harass her for more dowry. She was abused for the same. Petitioner Ramesh used to demand Rs. one crore in dowry. Her husband, the present petitioner, started to beat her within three days after the marriage. Her in-laws used to support him. In connection with demand for dowry she was locked up in a room. The petitioner used to tell her that if she cannot bring dowry from her parents, she should die.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner works in United States of America. After the marriage of the petitioner with the victim, they had gone to Udaypur for honeymoon. On 21.2.2018., the petitioner had left for United States. He does not know as to what went wrong with the victim. He has filed copies of the photographs which reveal that everything was well between the husband and wife during their honeymoon. The victim lived for a very short time in her matrimonial home. Suddenly, they were shocked to receive phone call from father of the victim stating that victim does not want to live with the petitioner. He has also filed documents in order to show that the petitioner had applied for and got U.S. visa for the victim so that she could join the petitioner in U.S.; therefore, inviting attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014)8 SCC 273 and order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in the cases of Sumit Kumar Vs. State of M.P. order dated 28.4.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5117/2016 and order dated 27.7.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10157/2016, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the objector have opposed the application. They have submitted that the petitioner had demanded as much as rupees one crore by way of dowry. He admittedly lives in U.S.. If he is released on anticipatory bail, it would be next to impossible to procure his presence before the trial Court to face the trial and the victim would be denied justice; therefore, it has been prayed that the application for anticipatory bail be dismissed.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail. However, it will have to be ensured that he does not flee from justice.
Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Ramesh Kumar Choubey, is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two local solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated in Sub section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He will file an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that:
(i) No adjournment shall be sought on his behalf on the ground that the petitioner is in United States of America and instructions could not be obtained by the counsel for the petitioner;
(ii) The question of identification of the petitioner by witnesses shall not be raised either during the testimony of a witness or at any subsequent stage of the litigation;
(iii) The petitioner shall authorize a counsel to answer to charge and questions during examination of the accused on his behalf and such answers would be binding upon the the petitioner;
(iv) If and when the trial Court directs personal appearance of the petitioner on a particular date, for the reasons to be recorded, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on such date;
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
Certified copy as per rules.
(C.V. Sirpurkar)
ahd Judge
Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD
Date: 2018.11.16 02:47:29 -08'00'