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’