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/-