Pushpendra Kumar Jamulkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the accused/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.288/2022 registered at Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 294 & 34 of IPC.

As per prosecution story, prosecutrix and applicant were having love affair and they got married at Arya Samaj on 23.12.2019. However, on 06.05.2020 they have performed the marriage function in their village where they again solemnized their marriage as per rites and rituals.

On 10.12.2022 prosecutrix lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station that after few days of marriage the applicant and her mother-in-law started harassing her for bringing less dowry. Her mother-in-law used to taunting her by saying that applicant is in Government job and they expected to get a car in dowry but unfortunately the applicant got married in the poor family and get nothing. Further, on 15.03.2021 the complainant delivered male child and thereafter they have lived peacefully for some days. However, in the month of November, 2021 she again conceived but 07.01.2022 she miscarried. For the said incident, the applicant and mother-in-law again started taunting her by saying sinister and started harassing her mentally and physically. It is alleged her mother-in-law provoking the husband for beating her. Due to such harassment and torture, the complainant left the matrimonial house and started living separately in the rented house since 10.05.2022. All this led to lodging of instant FIR.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in crime in question. The applicant is Government servant and working as Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary School. The applicant and her mother never assaulted the complainant. He further submits that complainant could not adjust herself in the matrimonial house and when the applicant did not fulfill her demands, she refused to live with him. The applicant or her mother never made any demand for dowry. He submits that her mother has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed in MCRCA No.31/2023. He also submits that at present the applicant is on ad-interim bail which was granted to him on 31.01.2023 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and he did not misuse the said liberty. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

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

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

Considering the background of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to reiterate the observations made in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, which reads thus :-

“11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498-A 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 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (2018) 10 SCC 472 has observed as under:-

“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 498-A 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 498-A]. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A 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 Vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 it has also been observed:-

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A 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 498-A 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 observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme, considering the backdrop of the case and cause of dispute, further considering that the applicant is Government servant as also considering that co-accused has been enlarged on anticipatory bail, this Court is of opinion that the accused/applicant can be released on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, on applicant’s 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.