Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prathvi Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Prithvi Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.)
1 M.Cr.C. No. 18195/2018
Gwalior dated 16/05/2018
Shri Brajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Avneesh Singh, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.183/2018 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 354, 323 r/w section 34 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story, short facts of the case is that the complainant Shilpi Tomar has lodged a complaint on 01/04/2018 to the effect that she married with Abhishek Tomar on 06/02/2013 and thereafter the accused persons inflicted dowry demand related cruelty upon the complainant. On 29/03/2018, the applicant who is father-in-law of the complainant with bad intention caught hold her hand, due to which, the complainant had consumed eight tablets of paracetamol at a time.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant, who is father in law of the complainant has been falsely implicated in the present case since the allegation levelled against him are cooked and concocted one. It is submitted that son of the applicant had filed an application under section 9 of Hindu HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Prithvi Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 18195/2018 Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons have since been released on bail by the trial court. It is further submitted that offences alleged are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is further submitted that applicant is a retired employee from Army and is apprehending his arrest. The present case has been lodged by the complainant just to build up pressure on entire family members. The applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior and will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application on the ground that offence is serious in nature and investigation against the applicant is pending and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is submitted that co-accused who have been released on bail were not charged with offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, whereas, the applicant is the only accused who has been charged with the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with the co- accused who have been enlarged on bail 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.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Prithvi Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 18195/2018 However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The application, therefore, stands rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2018.05.17 16:49:23 +05'30'