High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunil Armo vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 MP CK 0088

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 498A · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32559 Of 2021
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

26 paragraphs · 457 words

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J

This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant Sunil Armo apprehends his arrest in connection with

Crime No.680/2021, registered at Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the IPC and Section

3, 4 of the Dowry Prohobition Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is alleged

that applicant used to harass his wife/complainant Smt. Archana Thakur and demanded dowry and on 15/02/2021 applicant assaulted her and expelled

her from matrimonial house, while prosecutrix lodged the report on 17/06/2021. There is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR. It

is further submitted that the complainant has been living separately from the applicant since 05/04/2019 and thereafter on 12/09/2019 applicant filed

divorce petition against her wife/complainant, which is pending before Family Court, Jabalpur and to counter that case complainant lodged false report

against applicant and his family members. The applicant is a Government servant. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. Under these

circumstances, applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no criminal

past, without commenting on the merits of the case the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest by Police in the aforesaid case,

the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during

trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

C.C. as per rules.