High CourtsSingle Bench

Santara Bai Miri vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 8 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 CHH CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (Anticipatory Bail) No. 383, 384 Of 2022
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

13 paragraphs · 499 words
1.

Heard.

2.

These are the two applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.47/2022 registered at Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 498 A, 34 of the IPC.

3.

The prosecution case is that the complainant was married with applicant No.2 Milan Miri in the year 2020. Applicant Santara Bai Miri is the mother-in-law and applicant Sangeeta Khunte is the sister-in-law of the complainant. It has been alleged that after the marriage, the applicants started harassing the complainant for bringing less dowry and demanded Rs.50,000/-and Pulsar motorcycle. Due to physical and mental torture, the complainant had a miscarriage and thereafter, the applicants ousted her from the matrimonial house. The social meetings were also held twice and when the matter was not settled in the said meetings, the FIR has been lodged on 11.2.2022.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. There was love marriage between the complainant and applicant No.2 , therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry. The complainant wanted her husband (applicant) to reside in her parental house, to which, he refused, therefore, the applicants are roped in a false case. He prays for extending the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications.

6.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also on perusing the case diary and the counselling proceedings and further, considering the nature of allegations, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the present is a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

7.

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:-

(a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required,

(b) they 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) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial;

(d) after filing of the charge sheet, they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial;

(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

Certified copy as per rules.