Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramvilashi Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.23649/2019
(Smt. Ramvilasi Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated: 19.06.2019
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Upendri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Case-diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. Petitioner has filed this first application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss.498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered as Crime No.378/2019, by Police Station Kailaras, District Morena (M.P.).
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
The petitioner being mother-in-law is alleged with inflicting dowry demand related cruelty. The marriage of the complainant took place in March, 2012 and arrest in matters of this nature may diminish the possibility of settlement in future. 2
In view of above facts, this court is inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner..
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem fit appropriate to allow this application u/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. in the following terms.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :-
1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The petitioner will not indulge herself in extending 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 the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may 3 be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
It is coming to the notice of this Court that large number of anticipatory bail petitions u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. in respect of offence punishable u/S.498-A of IPC along with some other minor offences, along with Sec.3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, suffer dismissal at the hands of the Court of Sessions for various reasons.
The reason assigned by the Sessions Court may be justified. However, denial of anticipatory bail to the husband or his relatives in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act leads to very piquant situation, not only for the accused but also for the prosecutrix.
This Court has a word of advice for the Sessions Courts by emphasising the problems which both the rival parties face on rejection of an application for anticipatory bail in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as follows:-
1. Sec.498-A of IPC essentially is a manifestation of pure and simple matrimonial/family discord which takes a criminal colour on account of criminal intent attached to the cruelty inflicted.
2. The offence punishable u/S.498-A of IPC attracts 4 maximum sentence of three years and is therefore one of the minor most offences which are categorized as non-bailable triable by the Magistrate, First Class under classification of offences in the first schedule (II) appended to the Cr.P.C.
3. Denial of anticipatory bail for offence punishable u/S.498-A of IPC leads to increase in acrimony between the rival parties thereby reducing the possibility of settlement in the future between the rival parties.
4. Grant of anticipatory bail allows the accused to approach opposite side for settlement and correspondingly prosecutrix is also able to contemplate and take steps towards settlement by relinquishing acrimony and feeling of revenge.
5. Grant of anticipatory bail prevents a vindictive party from misusing the judicial process.
6. Denial of anticipatory bail by the Court below leads to multiplicity of litigation as the aggrieved party has to approach the High Court which rarely refuses grant of anticipatory bail.
The aforesaid clearly reveal that it is not only in the interest of the rival parties in a prosecution u/Ss.498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but also in the interest of matrimonial and domestic peace which contributes to societal peace. Further the Courts do not become party to the acrimony and feeling of revenge nursed by the rival parties against each other. Moreso the 5 prospects of settlement become reality only when the rival parties are afforded equal playing field where none is situated at a disadvantage. In furtherance of this avowed object of matrimonial, domestic and societal peace, the least that the Court can do is to not deny anticipatory bail in offences punishable u/S.498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
All the learned Presiding Officers are advised not to ordinarily refuse prayer for anticipatory bail mainly in respect of offences punishable u/Ss.498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the District and Sessions Judge of every district within the territorial jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench of the High Court for onward transmission to all the Courts exercising powers u/S.438 of Cr.P.C., for appropriate action at their level by treating this to be an advisory note.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge SS SATEESH KUMAR SEN 2019.06.21 17:16:20 -07'00'