Meghalaya High Court
Smti Saroj Ganeriwal vs . State Of Meghalaya on 24 September, 2021
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
AB. No. 11 of 2021
Date of Decision: 24.09.2021
Smti Saroj Ganeriwal Vs. State of Meghalaya
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Dr. N.Mozika, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. T.Sutnga, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.Kharmih, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court with an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. apparently being apprehensive of being arrested in connection with Tura Women P.S. Case No 0059/2021 under section 498(A)/506/34 IPC r/w section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is the widowed mother of Shri Rohit Ganeriwal who is married to Smti Naina Ganeriwal on 04.06.2014 at Tinsukia, Assam. The said marriage was an arranged marriage since the families of the bride and groom were known to each other through common friends in the community.
13. After the marriage, the couple lived in Bengaluru, Karnataka and in pursuit of employment, her son shifted to Manchester, UK where he stayed there along with his wife. In the year 2019, a son was born to them.
4. During the initial stage of pregnancy, the Petitioner went to live with her son and his wife in Manchester where she witnessed the attitude of her daughter-in-law who was always finding fault with her son and there were frequent arguments sometimes to the extent that she exhibited a violent nature towards her son.
5. On 03.03.2020, the couple were blessed with a son called Viraaj at Manchester, however in the midst of the pandemic, the daughter-in-law wanted to come back to her maternal home at Tura, Meghalaya and in spite of her husband's advice against it, she along with the Petitioner came back to India along with the child. The couple has been staying separately since then.
6. The Petitioner further states that the said daughter-in-law after seven years of marriage then filed an Ejahar alleging torture and dowry demand against her and her son which is an act of vengeance only to harass the Petitioner and her son, the FIR being duly registered as Tura Women P.S. Case No 0059/2021 under section 498(A)/506/34 IPC r/w section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. Being apprehensive of arrest in connection with the said Tura P.S. Case, the Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Dr N.Mozika, Learned Senior Counsel arguing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is residing at Tinsukia, Assam and is not residing with the Informant/Daughter-in-law and her son and as such, has nothing to do with the difference between the couple.
29. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is a 70 years old widowed lady and is a cancer survivor and is presently suffering from various ailments like Asthma, depression, High BP and Vertigo. Relevant medical certificate duly annexed with this application was highlighted by the learned senior Counsel.
10. Again, it is further submitted that the marital discord between the Petitioner's son and the complainant and the FIR is filed after more than one year of the Complainant's return to India from Manchester just to harass and pressurise the Petitioner and there is no indication to any demand of dowry or torture.
11. There being a reasonable apprehension of arrest on being accused of having committed a non-bailable offence, the Petitioner has therefore come before this Court with this instant application with an undertaking to bind herself to any conditions imposed by the Court on being enlarged on bail in the event of being arrested in connection with the said Tura P.S. case indicated above.
12. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that on this Court being pleased to grant interim bail, the Petitioner has appeared before the IO at Tura on 09.09.2021 and her statement was recorded. Along with her, some other witnesses including her nephew, Shri Avinash Jalan and his wife Smti Nitu Jalan were examined by the IO. This shows that the Petitioner is co- operating with the investigation inspite of her ill health.
13. To support his contentions, the learned senior Counsel has cited the case of "Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)", (2020) 5 SCC 1, para 40 and also the case of "Siddharam Satlinggappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra", (2011) 1 SCC, 694, para 89.
14. Mr H.Kharmih, learned GA, appearing on behalf of the State Respondent has submitted that as directed by this Court, the Case Dairy have been produced today and accordingly, this Court may be pleased to peruse the 3 same and if satisfied that anticipatory bail be given to the Petitioner, then strict conditions may be imposed.
15. Having heard the parties, this Court has considered the same and has also perused the case dairy which was duly produced. As stated by the Petitioner, it appears that the Complainant/ Daughter-in-law has indeed filed a complaint which was duly registered as indicated above. The allegations therein are required to be enquired into which is why the investigation is underway. That the Petitioner herein has been named as one of the accused in the said complaint is also a fact and accordingly, as per due procedure of law, she is required to be questioned within or without custody. Be that as it may, that the Petitioner has reasonable apprehension of being arrested in a case involving non-bailable sections of law is also apparent from the face of the record.
16. The authorities cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner speaks of the condition precedent for an application under section 438 Cr. P.C. which is 'apprehension' "Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)" para 40 (supra) and in the case of "Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre(supra)" para 89, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that custodial interrogation should be avoided in case the accused has joined investigation and has fully cooperated with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond.
17. However, the Supreme Court in the case of "Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre(supra)" at para 112 of the same has drawn up certain factors and parameters to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail which is reproduced as under:
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;4
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii)While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail".
18. In the light of the above observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the Petitioner herein can be allowed.
19. Accordingly, in the event if her arrest, the Petitioner is to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
i) That she will not abscond or tamper with the witnesses and evidence;
ii) That she will co-operate with the investigating agency, particularly the IO;
iii) That she will not leave the jurisdiction of India without due permission of the IO or the Court as the case may be;5
iv) That she will produce a personal bond of ₹30,000/- along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO or the Court concerned.
20. With the above, this application is hereby disposed of. No cost.
21. Registry is directed to send back the case dairy.
Judge Meghalaya 24.09.2021 "N. Swer, Stenographer"
6