Gautam Shrivastava & Anr vs State Of M.P

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.582/2021 registered at Police Station Dabra (City), District Gwalior for

offence under Sections 498-A, 34 and 406 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants â€" Gautam Shrivastava and Shubham Shrivastava that applicant No. 1 is the father-in-law and

applicant No. 2 is brother-in-law of the complainant. Applicant No.1 is an old man aged around 64 years whereas applicant No. 2 is a young boy aged

around 26 years and is preparing for UPSC Civil Services Examination. Recently, applicant No. 1 had suffered from COVID-19 infection and is still

recovering. It is further submitted that marriage of the complainant with co-accused Himanshu, son of applicant No. 1, was solemnized on 19/11/2019

as per hindu rites and ritual. As there was no cordial relations between the husband and wife, therefore, quarrel took place between them and this

false FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant No. 2 was living in Delhi for preparation of UPSC

Civil Services Examination and has recently came back to Gwalior and husband of the complainant is posted in Mijoram. It is further submitted that

even if the allegations is accepted in toto, the maximum punishment prescribed is upto seven years, therefore, applicant is entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, [(2014) 8 SCC 273] and the

order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Zareena Begam vs. State of M.P. In MCRC No.30933/2020. Hence, prayed for grant

of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is clear allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- against

the present applicants and applicant No. 1 compelled the complainant/daughter-in-law by cruelty. It is further submitted that investigation is still going

on. Hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the available record.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as the fact that applicants are the father-in-law and brother-in-law of

the complainant, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicants be

released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

Applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. They shall further abide by other

conditions as enumerated under sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

This MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.