SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Jaishree vs State on 30 March, 2017

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 10004 / 2015
Smt. Jaishree W/o Lalit Kumar, By caste Aggarwal, R/o House
No.500, Urban State Phase-II, Hisar, Hariyana.
                                                        ----Petitioner
                               Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                   ----Respondent
                          Connected With
             S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 10005 / 2015
Ankit Garg S/o Lalit Kumar, aged 27 years, By caste Aggarwal, R/o
Near Water Tank, Industrial Area, Hisar, Hariyana.

                                                    ----Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Rajasthan.

                                                  ----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)   : Mr. Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyaya, PP.
For complainant     : Mr. M.K. Garg.
_____________________________________________________
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
                               Order
30/03/2017

     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

     These anticipatory bail applications have been filed by the

petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.378/2015, registered at Police Station Nohar, for offences

under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
                                (2 of 3)
                                                   [CRLMB-10004/2015]



     Petitioner Ankit Garg is the husband and petitioner Smt.

Jaishree is the mother-in-law of the complainant Smt. Khushboo

Garg. The petitioner Ankit Garg instituted proceedings under the

Hindu Marriage Act against complainant Khushboo Garg in the

Family Court, Hanumangarh. In those proceedings, the statement

of Smt. Khushboo was recorded on 30.07.2014. In cross-

examination, she admitted that she was living separately from

Ankit Garg for last more than 3 years. She further candidly

conceded on a suggestion given in cross examination that no

dowry was ever demanded from her. The FIR came to be lodged

on 02.08.2015. Numerous attempts of settlement were reportedly

made between the parties but failed.

     In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the

arguments advanced by Shri Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the

petitioner that (i) the FIR has been filed after the period of

limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and (ii) that the

case set up in the FIR regarding the complainant having been

harassed and humiliated on account of bringing less dowry is

concocted, does carry some weight.

     Be that as it may. Any observation by this Court on this

aspect may prejudice the investigation.

     Having regard to the facts and circumstances available on

record, it is considered to be just and proper to grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioners.

     Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and it is

directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Smt. Jaishree
                                (3 of 3)
                                                    [CRLMB-10004/2015]



and (2) Ankit Garg in connection with F.I.R. No.378/2015,

registered at Police Station Nohar, the petitioners shall be released

on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on

the following conditions :-

(i). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for
     interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any
      inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
      the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
      such facts to the court or any police officer; and
(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous
       permission of the court.


     A copy of this order be placed in each file.



                                            (SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Tikam/79

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

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

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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