Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayshri Anil Pandya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 41787/2018
(Anil Mugatlal Pandya Vs. State of M.P.)
M.Cr.C. No. 41795/2018
(Jayshri Anil Pandya Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated: 12.11.2018
Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri A. Jain,
learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
Perused case diary.
These are the first applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.115/2018 registered at Women's Police Station, Bhopal Distt. Bhopal for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 & 34 of Ipc.
As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that on 5.2.2018 co-accused Vishvesh Pandya has entered into a marriage with the complainant after introducing through www.shaadi.com. The marriage was solemnized with the consent of both the families. The applicants are the mother and father of co-accused Vishvesh Pandya and are residing at Muscat (Oman) while co-accused Vishvesh Pandya is residing at Australia. It is alleged that complainant's parents spent Rs.70 lacs in the marriage ceremony which was solemnized at Bhopal on the pretext of applicants and co-accused. After the marriage, the complainant went alongwith the co-accused Vishvesh Pandya to Bali (Indonesia) for honeymoon purpose. It is also stated that co-accused Vishvesh Pandya started to harass the complainant by Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 13/11/2018 05:01:41 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH alleging that he cannot continue the marriage with her. It is also alleged that during the stay at Bali (Indonesia), the complainant came to know that co-accused Vishvesh Pandya had already entered into a marriage which survived for one month and afterwards first wife of the co-accused Vishvesh Pandya is living separately from him and they have not taken any decree regarding nullification of the marriage. The complainant enquired from co-accused Vishvesh Pandya about his first marriage, but he has not given any satisfactory answer. It is also alleged that co-accused Vishvesh Pandya has started to beat her for silly reasons and also abused her family members. Co- accused Vishvesh Pandya disclosed his previous relations with other girls and shown so many photographs to the complainant. In the meanwhile complainant has also went to her in-laws' (applicants) house at Muscat (Oman) where the applicants have also taken all jewelries worth Rs.40 lacs of the complainant and started to quarrel with her and tortured by saying that she does not deserve for their family. The present applicants have sent back the complainant to India on 26.6.2018 and afterward they are not prepared to take her at the matrimonial house. Hence on the complaint of the complainant, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants and co-accused.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that a false case has been been registered against the present applicants. It is urged that the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.
The marriage of the complainant with co-accused Vishvesh Pandya seems to have been existed for few months. In that Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 13/11/2018 05:01:41 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH period most of the time the complainant with co-accused Vishvesh Pandya have remained at Bali (Indonesia) and Australia. The applicants who are mother-in-law and father-in- law of the complainant said to have been resided with the complainant only for one or two days at Muscat (Oman). The allegation of complainant for demanding dowry is also against the present applicants, but it seems that the applicants have played a very limited role in the marriage of complainant with co-accused Vishvesh Pandya.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the appellants on anticipatory bail.
Consequently, these fist applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants are allowed.
It is directed that the applicants shall keep themselves present before the concerned police station/Court within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order. It is further directed that in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer of the concerned police station.
The applicants shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 13/11/2018 05:01:41