THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9984/2019
(Dr. Mohit Garg Vs. State of M.P.)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 15/3/2019
Shri V.K.Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri
M.S.Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
I.A. No.2041/19, an application under section 301(2) of
the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
The applicant has filed this first application under
section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station City
Kotwali, Morena, in connection with Crime No.676/2018,
registered in relation to the offences punishable under
sections 498A, 406, 294, 323, 506, 120B, 377, 511 read with
34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He is the
husband of the complainant. Their marriage was solemnized
on 29/6/17.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he
was involved in subjecting the complainant to cruelty and
harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9984/2019
(Dr. Mohit Garg Vs. State of M.P.)
(2)
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated. He is a doctor by
profession and practices in Mumbai. He is in custody since
26/2/19. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.
No further custodial interrogation is required. The offence
under section 377, IPC is not made out in view of the latest
Apex Court dictum and also in view of the fact that the act is
allegedly committed inside the wedlock. He is a resident of
Mumbai and there is no likelihood of his absconsion if
released on bail. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for
grant of bail is made.
Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant has opposed the application and prayed
for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the
allegations and the material available on record, no case for
grant of bail is made out. It is submitted that it can be seen
from the documents that amount has been paid through RTGS
on various occasions relating to the demand of dowry in the
joint account of the applicant and complainant. Thereafter, the
applicant got the entire amount transferred in his separate
account. It is also submitted that from bare perusal of
statement of the complainant, involvement of the applicant
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9984/2019
(Dr. Mohit Garg Vs. State of M.P.)
(3)
cannot be ruled out.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact that prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema
to the concept of liberty, this Court is inclined to extend the
benefit of bail to the applicant, though on comparatively
stringent conditions.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that
the applicant namely Dr. Mohit Garg be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lac only) with two solvent and local sureties of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance during trial on the dates
fixed by the concerned Court.
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;
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.9984/2019
(Dr. Mohit Garg Vs. State of M.P.)
(4)
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as
the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for
compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Judge
(and)
ANAND SHRIVASTAVA
2019.03.16 17:30:08 +05’30’