Prashant Kumar Jha vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.8/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Bhilai, District Durg for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 34 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the applicant on 13.12.2018. It is alleged that after 2 days of the marriage, the applicant and his family members i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing her for bringing less dowry. It is averred in the FIR that after 10 days of marriage, applicant/husband had gone to his working place at Austin in USA whereas the complainant/wife resided at her matrimonial house. After 4 months, she went with her husband to USA where the applicant again started harassing and torturing her physically and mentally and also demanded Rs.10 Lacs. Thereafter, the complainant got pregnant and returned to Raipur and gave birth to a child on 15.03.2020. During the said period also, the applicant’s family members were harassing her. Thereafter, in the month of March, 2022, the complainant along with her child went to USA, where they lived peacefully for some days, however, again after sometime her husband started harassing her. Thereafter, the complainant informed her brother about the harassment made by the applicant. Her brother reported the matter to the Police of Austin, USA. In this regard, a counselling was also done between the parties by the police. Thereafter, the complainant returned to Raipur and started living with her family members and lodged a complaint about the harassment made by the applicant and his family members on 17.01.2023.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been roped in a false case. Learned senior counsel further submits that during the period of the stay at USA, the applicant provided all facilities and luxuries to the wife but she used to complain about his family members and every little thing. Further, the applicant is working as a Research Scientist and due to his professional work, sometimes he could not manage time for hanging out with his family. Further, during the period of stay at USA, the complainant’s brother used to interfere in their family matters and also threatened him to implicate in a false case, as a result of which, the applicant got disturbed mentally. However, when the complainant gave birth to a child, the applicant could not come to India on account of Covid Pandemic however, he transferred money to the tune of Rs.7,62,334/- in the complainant’s account for proper care of her and the child. In this regard, the statement of transfer made by the applicant is also annexed with the petition. Learned senior counsel further submits that on 02.08.2022, the brother of the complainant approached the police of Austin, USA, in which, they found some family disturbance and therefore, couselling proceeding was also held and copy of the same is annexed with the application which supports the contention of the applicant. Thereafter, on 16.09.2022 the applicant wrote a letter to the District Superintendent of Police, Durg where he narrated all the incidents and also about threatening made by the complainant and her family members. Learned senior counsel submits that the other family members of the applicant have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg on 23.01.2023 and the allegation levelled against them and the present applicant is of same nature. It is lastly submitted that the applicant belongs to a reputed family and working as a Research Scientist. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. However, learned State counsel submits that considering the counselling proceedings held between the parties on 17.10.2022, there appears to be a is hope of an amicable settlement between them.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

Considering the facts of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to take note of an observation made in the matter of G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693, which reads thus:-

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.”

Further, in Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 following was materially observed:-

“11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & anr (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Explanation to Section 498A]. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married woman. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.”

Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473, it has also been observed:-

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.”

In light of the aforesaid principles and considering the submission made by counsel for the parties; particularly considering that during the pregnancy period of the complainant, the applicant regularly sent money for treatment and care of his wife and child; considering the submission of State counsel that there is a hope of an amicable settlement between the parties; and that other family members of the applicant have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Court below, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail, on the following conditions:-

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required,

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,

(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(d) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.