High CourtsDivision Bench

Gulabi Devi and others vs State of Chattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 23 September 2005 · Citation: (2005) CriminalCC 335

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 498A
CASE NUMBER
B.A. No. 152 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 404 words

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard.

The applicants have filed this bail application u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.

Case Diary of Crime No.83/2005, registered at Police Station-Chaucha for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition of Act, perused.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that complainant namely - Smt.Rakhi Singh was married with co-accused Ravindra Kumar Singh in the year 2003. Thereafter, she was residing with him and on some family dispute, she returned back to her parents'' place and thereafter a report dated 23.7.2005 was lodged by her against her husband and the present applicants. The applicant No. 1 is mother in-law, applicant No.2 is brother in law (Devar) and applicant No.3 is sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant. Alongwith the family members, the husband namely Ravindra Kumar Singh has also been made accused in this case.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that Ravindra Kumar Singh was arrested on 26.7.2005 and he was released on bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 29.7.2005, passed in bail application No. 151/2005. A copy of his bail order has been filed as Annexure A-4. He further submits that the father-in-law was also arrested and he was also released on bail by the said order by the Sessions Court. He prays for releasing these applicants on anticipatory bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the circumstance that the father-in-law and the husband of the complainant were arrested and they were released on regular bail by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29.7.2005. I am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the benefit u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applicants. Accordingly, their application is allowed.

7.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them.

8.

This order shall remain in force for a period of 6 weeks from today. During this period, the applicants may apply for regular bail before the regular Court.

With the observations, this petition stands finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.