SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Rita Ghosh And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 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.


(Proceedings through video conferencing)


MCRCA No.703 of 2021

• Pradipto Ghosh, aged about 34 years, S/o Pushan Ghosh,R/o
1, Rajanikanta Das Road, Kolkata – 700078 (WB)

—- Applicant


• State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police
Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

—- Non-applicant

MCRCA No.704 of 2021


Smt. Rita Ghosh, aged about 58 years, wife of Pushan Ghosh.

2. Pushan Ghosh, aged about 61 years, son of Late Haridas

3. Probuddha Ghosh, aged about 27 years, son of Poshan

All R/o 1, Rajanikanta Das Road, Kolkata – 700078 (WB)

—- Applicants


• State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police
Station Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

—- Non-applicant

For Applicants : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate
with Mr. Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board


1. As the above anticipatory bail applications arise out of the

same crime number, they are being heard together and

decided by this common order.

2. M.Cr.C. (A) No.703/2021 is preferred by husband of

complainant and M.Cr.C. (A) No.704/2021 is preferred by

father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of complainant

for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in

connection with Crime No.48/2021 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for commission of

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC. (Initially

crime number is not mentioned in both the bail applications as

on the date of filing of these two anticipatory bail applications

no crime was registered by police against present applicants,

but subsequently on 20.6.2021 instant crime was registered

against present applicants and a copy of FIR is placed on

record by learned counsel for applicants along with Covering

memo dated 23.6.2021).

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that marriage between the

complainant and applicant Pradipto Ghosh was solemnized on

29.1.2016 and after marriage, the complainant started residing

in her matrimonial home. In the month of October, 2019 when

the complainant came to her parental home in Raipur to

celebrate festival of Diwali Bhaidooj, she fell sick, her health

condition became severe and she had to undergo surgery of

Polycystic Ovary Disorder (PCOD). In the year 2018 also the

complainant underwent PCOD surgery. Thereafter, due to

declaration of nationwide lock-down on account of pandemic

Covid-19, the complainant could not go back to Kolkata.

During stay of complainant at her matrimonial home, there

was demand of Rs.50 Lakh from the applicants and she was

being harassed and ill treated. Applicant Pradipto Ghosh,

husband of complainant, is having extra marital affairs with so

many girls and the complainant came to know about this fact

after reading mobile chats of her husband. Applicant Pradipto

has shown himself to be unmarried in matrimonial portals.

Based on written complaint dated 4.1.2021, instant crime was

registered on 20.6.2021 against present applicants for the

aforementioned offences.

4. Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants in both

the anticipatory bail applications would submit that the

complainant is a qualified lady. To fulfil desire of complainant

of pursuing studies of MBA course, education loan from the

bank was obtained and instalments of which are being paid by

applicant-husband. He further submits that instead of

discharging her matrimonial obligations towards her husband

and in-laws, the complainant keep herself busy in mobile or

watching television, as a result, some trivial disputes used to

take place between her and her in-laws. He further submits

that despite repeated phone calls by applicant husband when

the complainant did not come back to her matrimonial home

from her parental home, applicant husband served a legal

notice upon her and thereafter filed an application under

Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the

Court of competent jurisdiction at Alipore (West Bengal) for

grant of divorce. After getting knowledge about filing of

divorce petition by applicant husband and after receipt of

notice of divorce petition, the complainant has made instant

complaint levelling false allegations against applicant husband

and his family members. He further submits that the applicants

have not committed any offence as alleged against them,

hence they are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

He further submits that on the first date of hearing, he

made his submissions on the objection raised by the Registry

with regard to maintainability of these anticipatory bail

applications. He submits that a Constitutional Bench of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sushila Agrawal ors Vs.

State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1

while answering the reference has held in Paragraph 92.1 that

it is not essential that an application should be moved after an

FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are

clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.

In case at hand, the applicants have not directly filed

anticipatory bail application before this Court, but as per

procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, the applicants have first approached the Court below for

grant of anticipatory bail to them and only after rejection of

their anticipatory bail applications vide impugned orders

recording that no offence is registered against applicants at

Mahila Thana, Raipur. He further points out that after rejection

of bail applications by the Court below, on 20.6.2021 FIR is

registered against present applicant for the offence punishable

under Section 498A, 34 of IPC for which they were

apprehending their arrest after issuance of notice to them from

Mahila Police Station, Raipur. Applicants have pleaded that

they have neither harassed nor treated the complainant with

cruelty for demand of dowry. Hence, anticipatory bail

applications of applicants are maintainable before this Court.

5. Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, learned Government Advocate for the

State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for

applicants and submits that in written complaint the

complainant has made serious allegations against present

applicants. He submits that there are allegations of demand of

Rs.50 Lakhs from the complainant along with other

allegations. It is also pointed out that the applicant husband

along with his father brothers in the habit of consuming

liquor and other intoxicated substances by arranging parties in

house itself. He further submits that looking to the allegations

levelled by complainant, present applicants are entitled for

grant of anticipatory bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Copy of FIR is placed on record along with Covering Memo
dated 26.3.2021.

8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case,

nature of allegations levelled against present applicants and

the fact that complaint has been lodged only on 4.1.2021 i.e.

after service of notice upon the complainant of divorce petition

filed by applicant husband on 28.12.2020, without commenting

anything on the merits of case, I am of the view that present is

a fit case where applicants should be granted anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and it is

directed that in the event of arrest of applicant Pradipto

Ghosh in MCrC (A) No.703/2021 and applicants Smt. Rita

Ghosh, Pushan Ghosh Probudhha Ghosh in M.Cr.C. (A)

No.704/2021, in connection with the crime in question, they

shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting

them on their executing a personal bond in the sum of

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

satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicants shall also

abide by the following conditions :

(i) that they shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and

when required;

(ii) that they 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 Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that they shall not act, in any manner, which will be

prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that they shall appear before the trial Court on each

and every date given to him by the said Court till

disposal of the trial.


(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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