Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ranjeet Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-48629-2019
(DR. RANJEET ARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated :29/11/2019
Shri Y.K. Pathak with Shri Mahavir Pathak, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Shri Vikrant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
I.A. No.9628/2019, an application filed under Section 301(2) for assisting the Public Prosecutor.
For the reason mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Shri L.K. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor during hearing of the matter.
Case diary perused.
The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.257/2019, registered at Police Station Mahila Police Thana Padav, District Gwalior (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 377, 506, 509 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not committed the offence in any manner. It is alleged by learned counsel for the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-48629-2019 (DR. RANJEET ARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) applicant that the applicant is a Government servant and marriage took place 15 year back in the month of May, 2004. There is no complaint made with respect to commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC. Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the complaint by complainant in Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior on 19.6.2019. From perusal of complaint dated 19.6.2019, there is no specific allegations for commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC. He has further alleged that the applicant is having two daughters aged about 14 year and 10 years respectively. It is submitted that the commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC is an afterthought just to create undue pressure on the applicant. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State as well complainant opposed the prayer and has submitted that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of offence. There is specific allegations for commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC. He has read over the impugned order passed by learned trial, wherein THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-48629-2019 (DR. RANJEET ARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) learned trial has considered the offence punishable u/S.377 of IPC. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
On a specific query made to complainant that why she has not made any averments in complaint made by her on 19.6.2019 regarding commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC. Counsel for the complainant could not answer the same.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the case diary it is seen that the applicant is a Government servant and there is no specific allegations regarding commission of offence u/S.377 of IPC when the complaint was made to Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior on 19.6.2019. Counsel for the complainant could not clarify the aspect that why she has not made averments regarding the offence u/S.377 of IPC when the complaint made to Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior on 19.6.2019. The complaint was totally silent about the aforesaid aspects.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for the applicant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-48629-2019 (DR. RANJEET ARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) in the following terms.
It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be and would not move in the vicinity of the complainant;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, in case the applicant indulges himself in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-48629-2019 (DR. RANJEET ARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
7. The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till conclusion of investigation (pending if any) and if charge sheet is being filed, he will mark his presence as per the directions issued by the concerning trial Court.
In event of failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions, the State Authorities will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2019.11.30 10:32:30 +05'30'