Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheikh Mubara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 August, 2015
MCRC-11025-2015
(SHEIKH MUBARA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
10-08-2015
Shri Y.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant/accused.
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 298/2015 registered at Police Station Kareli Distt. Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC and under Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant- accused being the husband has been falsely implicated in this case as the complainant Julekha Bi, whose marriage was solemnized with the applicant-accused on 22-05-2014, does not want to live with the applicant- accused because she is more educated than the applicant-accused, who is illiterate. The allegations made against the applicant-accused are totally false and concocted. The matter was taken up at the Police Pramarsh Kendra, Narsinghpur for settlement of the dispute, wherein the complainant stated before the police that she wanted to divorce the applicant-accused, owing to which, the matter could not be resolved between the parties thereafter, the report was lodged. Learned Counsel further pleads that as per the contents of the report, the complainant had been residing in her parental house for three months before lodging of the report. The alleged offences are not punishable with the imprisonment for more than 7 years and there is no kind of recovery to be made in this case from the applicant-accused. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail application. On perusal of the case-diary, it transpires that the complainant is a graduate whereas the applicant-accused is not educated as much as the complainant. The dispute was taken up before the Police Pramarsh Kendra for settlement of the same but the complainant refused to live with the applicant-accused and stated that she wanted to divorce the applicant- accused. The complainant had been residing in her parental house for three months before the lodging of the report in question. There is no kind of recovery to be made from the applicant-accused in this case. The alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment for more than 3 years.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicant-accused and the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment rendered in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others 2014 Vol. 8 SCC 273, this Court deems it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, therefore, allowing the application, it is ordered that in the event of arrest by the investigating officer/Court, the applicant shall be granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.
The applicant shall join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.
(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE