SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajat Pashine vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

1

(Proceedings through video conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 687 of 2021
• Rajat Pashine (however wrongly written as Rajat Kumar
Pashine), son of Dr. Prafulla Kumar Pashine, aged around 37
years, presently residing at C-1102, Marvel Fria, Near Kamal
Bagh Society, Wagholi, Pune, P.S. Lonikand, District Pune
(Maharashtra) Pin- 412207.

—- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer,
Police Station Mahila Thana, Sector-6, Bhilainagar, Tahsil
District Durg (CG)

—- Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate
For Complainant : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
23/7/2021
1. This is an application under
Section 438 of CrPC for grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicant as he apprehends his arrest

in connection with Crime No.70/2020 registered at Police

Station- Mahila Thana, District Durg (CG) for commission of

offence punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34, 377 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. As per case of the prosecution, marriage of the complainant

and present applicant is solemnized on 24.7.2013 and out of

their wedlock, they are blessed with one baby boy on
2

22.4.2017. Both are working in a multinational company in

Pune. On 28.11.2020 a written complaint has been lodged by

complainant in the concerned police station alleging therein

that from initial days of marriage, she is ill-treated and

harassed by present applicant, his parents sisters for

demand of dowry. It is further alleged that after marriage, the

complainant came to her matrimonial home in Pune, where

present applicant made forcible unnatural sex with her several

times and lastly during lock-down in the month of March,

2020. Based on this written complaint, instant crime is

registered against present applicant and four others i.e. father,

mother two sisters of present applicant.

3. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for applicant would submit

that instant FIR is registered on false and frivolous grounds.

Allegations contained in FIR are baseless and made only after

service of summons and appearance of complainant in

divorce proceedings filed by present applicant before the

competent Court at Pune (Maharashtra). He further submits

that on 26.5.2020 there was quarrel between complainant and

present applicant with respect to extra marital affair of

complainant with one Himanshu Shukla, due to said quarrel

the complainant had ousted present applicant from house and

he was forced to take shelter in his friend’s house. On

15.8.2020 the complainant left her matrimonial home along

with said Himanshu Shukla, which is evident from

photographs of CCTV camera filed along with this bail
3

application as Annexure A-6. He further submits that present

applicant and complainant are having joint bank account, on

24.8.2020 complainant had transferred a total sum of Rs.20

Lakhs from that joint bank account to her individual bank

account. Divorce petition has been filed on 10.9.2020

impleading said Himanshu Shukla as party respondent and

after service of summons, the complainant appeared in

divorce proceedings through her counsel on 15.10.2020 and

thereafter only written complaint is made based on which

instant crime is registered against present applicant on

28.11.2020. He submits that only to pressurize present

applicant, complaint is lodged by the complainant. He further

submits that the allegations levelled in instant complaint

pertain to early days of marriage, but the complainant has not

made any report/complaint in this regard before any authority

or family members, this fact itself shows that false and

frivolous allegations are made against present applicant.

Applicant is working with multinational company and if he is

arrested by police, he may suffer adversely in his career.

4. Mr. Roshan Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State

opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for

applicant and submits that there are specific allegations in FIR

that present applicant along with his family members had

treated the complainant with cruelty for demand of dowry, the

gold ornaments gifted to complainant at the time of marriage

were kept by them. There is further allegation that present
4

applicant had committed unnatural sex with complainant

against her wishes. Hence, present applicant is entitled to be

benefited under Section 438 of CrPC.

5. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel for complainant/objector

submits that the complainant has filed objection to grant of

anticipatory bail along with documents. He submits that at the

time of hearing of anticipatory bail application before the Court

below, the police have filed objection specifically mentioning

therein that apart from offences under Section 498A r/w 34 of

IPC, offence under Section 377 of IPC and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have also been added against

present applicant, hence he is not entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail. He further submits that at the time of

issuance of summons of divorce petition, present applicant

was well aware of the fact that complainant is residing in her

parental home in Durg, but just to humiliate the complainant,

present applicant has intentionally sent summons of divorce

petition to her office. He further submits that complainant had

filed petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for transfer of

divorce proceedings pending before the Court at Pune

(Maharashtra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed

further proceedings pending before the court at Pune. He

further submits that the complainant has not withdrawn the

entire amount but only part of the amount which she received

as salary from their joint account. From perusal of joint bank

account statement it is evident that more than the amount
5

withdrew by complainant is still in credit of joint account.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused

copy of complaint, FIR and objection filed by SHO, Police

Station Mahila Thana, Durg before the Court below available

on record.

7. The objection raised by learned counsel for the Objector with

regard to maintainability of this anticipatory bail application is

already decided by separate order.

8. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations levelled

against present applicant, the material placed along with this

bail application as also objection filed on behalf of

complainant, and further considering the fact that complaint is

filed after seven years of marriage, only after service of

summons of divorce petition filed by present applicant in Pune

and appearance of complainant in divorce proceedings; no

material is filed by complainant along with her objection

indicating that prior to filing of instant complaint, she has

drawn any proceeding or made any complaint of any nature to

any authority against present applicant or his family members,

without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am of

the view that present is a fit case where applicant should be

granted anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in

the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in

question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the
6

officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the

satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicant shall also

abide by the following conditions :

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer as when required;

(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that he shall not act, in any manner, which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that he shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation