Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Meghani & 1 Other(S) vs State Of Gujarat & 1 Other(S)

Umesh A. Trivedi, J

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with the offence registered at C.R. No.11196017200555 of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 323, 498 A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(2)(ii), 5 of 'the Act' registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City. Abovesaid Sections are mentioned as it is reflected from the copy of FIR at page 12.

It is alleged by the first informant in the FIR that on 05.07.2018 she contracted marriage with Nileshbhai @ Ansh Rameshbhai Meghani and after that she used to stay with her parents for some time. However, since 19.05.2019 she alongwith her husband started staying in tenement obtained on rent and there they stayed for about six months. There are certain other allegations against the husband of obtaining loan in her name, which was being paid by the wife - first informant. It is mentioned that since November, 2019 to January, 2020, before she went to her parental home and she was pregnant, she remained with the present appellants, who are parents-in-law of the first informant. However, it is further mentioned in the FIR that in the month of March, 2020 she had gone to her matrimonial home and there were some heated exchange of words between her in-laws and the first informant. Pursuant thereto, she called up Abhayam help line whereas mother-in-law is alleged to have called the Police by dialing No.100. However, at that time, the dispute was resolved. In the last paragraph of the FIR, it is stated that on 08.05.2000 when she was in her advance stage of pregnancy, father-in-law is alleged to have given push to her and uttered certain words insulting about her caste and thereby invoked the provisions of 'the Act' as also Sections 498 A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the appellants. He has submitted that except the words so stated in the last paragraph of the FIR, though she stayed with her in-laws for quite few months, there were no such utterance ever. If, at all, they did not like the marriage or objected to the marriage with the first informant, they would not have permitted her to stay with them. It is further alleged that she being Police Sub Inspector in Central Excise Department, such words were put in the mouth of appellant no.1 knowing the law fully so as to deprive them of their statutory right, which is otherwise available to them to pray for anticipatory bail, and therefore, he has requested that the appellants - parents-in-law be granted anticipatory bail, more particularly, when essential dispute is matrimonial dispute with husband.

As against that, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as also Ms. Avani Patel, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - original first informant, submitted that there are specific averments invoking the provisions of 'the Act', and therefore, when 'the Act' specifically bars resorting the remedy under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants even if they are entitled for anticipatory bail for Indian Penal Code offences, this Appeal be dismissed when there is a clear bar invoking the said provisions under 'the Act'.

Heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and perused the FIR as also the impugned order and averments made in the FIR. Considering the fact that the first informant is literate as also serving as PSI in the Central Excise Department, she is well versed with the law. Of course she may have a right to invoke or complain about the act / commission of offence but for the purpose of resolving the matrimonial dispute by putting certain words in the mouth of the father-in-law, provisions of 'the Act' have been invoked, prima facie with a view to see that everyone gets arrested in connection with the offence. If not concluding finally on the applicability of 'the Act', I see no reason to deny anticipatory bail to the applicants, more particularly, when even according to the assertion in the FIR she stayed with the parents-in-law in their house for about two months and even prior to the alleged incident there was no resentment at all and there was no such allegation levelled against the appellants. Over and above that, essentially it appears that for marital discord with her husband, whole family is dragged, may be rightly, but invoking provisions of 'the Act', by putting few words in the mouth of the father-in- law with a view to see that they are deprived of the statutory right of asking anticipatory bail apart from grant of it on merits, I am inclined to allow this Appeal. Hence, the Investigating Officer is directed to release the appellants on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the offence registered at at C.R. No.11196017200555 of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 323, 498 A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(2)(ii), 5 of 'the Act' registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City on their executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each on the following terms and conditions that;

(a) they shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) they shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 28.09.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

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

(d) they shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) they shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) they shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellants. The appellants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the appellants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

With this, the present Appeal is disposed of as allowed.