Ramkaran Singh Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

I.A. No.14221/2020, an application for urgent hearing through video conferencing, accordingly, stands allowed.

I.A. No.15381/2020, an application filed u/S. 301(2) Cr.P.C. is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned Additional Advocate General.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Case diary perused.

This is the first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.160/2020 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 498A, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant alongwith co-accused persons inflicted dowry demand related cruelty against the complainant and also outraged her modesty. On the basis of the aforesaid, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is aged about 68 years, who is father-in-law of the complainant and he has falsely been implicated in the case. The present complaint is an out come and counterblast to the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband of the complainant. It is further submitted that offence under Section 354 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. Omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Attention has also been invited to the guidelines issued to all the States and Union Territories by the Apex Court for de-congesting the prisons in suo motu W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 (IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS) to consider release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less by constituting a High Powered Committee. The applicant is aged about 68 years, therefore he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the basis of the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. It is also submitted that three other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.22675/2020, 24674/2020 and 27864/2020 vide orders dt.14.07.2020, 07.08.2020 and 18.08.2020 respectively. It is submitted that applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

In response, learned Additional Advocate General as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application contending that the applicant is absconding since the date of registration of the FIR. Investigation against the applicant is pending. Custodial Interrogation of the applicant is required in the case. They further submitted that in the FIR and statements under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has categorically and specifically stated that the present applicant has tried to outrage her modesty by touching on her cheek, back and hip. It is further submitted that on the basis of material available on record and looking to the gravity of the offence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. On such grounds prays for rejection of application.

However, it would not be desirable to enter into the merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the gravity of the offence so also the fact that specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant, this court is of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Consequently, the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant stands rejected.

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