Jaishri Gore vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved with the order dated 19.2.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (CG) passed in Criminal MJC No.6/2021, whereby, the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the applicant vide order dated 31.10.2020 in connection with Crime No.437/2020 registered at Police Station Kharsia, Raigarh (CG). under Section 498-A, 354, 34 of the IPC, has been cancelled.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/non-applicant No.2 has filed an application dated 27.10.2020 before the Women Commission alleging that her husband (applicant herein) and her in-laws are harassing her on account of bringing less dowry. It was also alleged that the brother-in-law (devar) of the complainant namely Jai Kisan used to misbehave with the complainant with an intention to outrage her modesty and further that the applicant has kept her 3 years old child with him and ousted her from the matrimonial house. On such allegations, an offence under Section 498-A and 354/34 of the IPC was registered against the applicant, for which, the applicant moved an application for anticipatory bail raising the plea that on 25.7.2020, the complainant/victim was found in an objectionable position with another man namely Sunil Yadav and therefore, in order to create a pressure, a false report has been lodged by the complainant against him. It was also pleaded that with regard to the custody of the minor child, the matter is pending consideration before the SDM and the applicant is bound to comply with the order. After considering all the aspects, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Bail Petition No.752/2020 granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on 31.10.2020.

Subsequently, the complainant moved an application for cancellation of the bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has not complied with the order of the SDM and deliberately not appeared in the proceedings and consequently, the matter was disposed of by order dated 11.12.2020 with a direction to the victim, if she desires, to move an application before the competent Court of law. It was further alleged that the applicant on 29.11.2020, at 6:00 p.m., forcefully entered into the parental house of the victim, used bad language and also extended life threats to her to withdraw the case with a warning that he would not return the baby child. An application in this regard was also filed before the Police Station, District Janjgir-Champa on 15.12.2020 and a xerox copy of it was filed in support of the application for cancellation of the bail. Upon hearing of counsel for the parties, the Court below, vide the impugned order, cancelled the anticipatory bail of the applicant and directed him to surrender before the concerned Court within 10 days from the date of passing of the order and in case, if he did not surrender, non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued against him.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order is bad in law and not sustainable as the complainant-victim was caught red handed in an objectionable position with another man namely Sunil Yadav, therefore, in order to create a pressure, she has lodged a false FIR. He would further submit that before passing of the impugned order, the Court has also called a report from the Police Station Kharisa, in which, it has specifically been mentioned that there is a dispute as to the custody of the baby child aged about 3 years, between the complainant and the applicant and Police Station Kharsia has not reported any case against the applicant with regard to beating or giving life threats to the complainant or her family members by him. He would further submit that the complainant-victim has not taken any proper legal course for taking custody of the baby child before the concerned Family Court, hence, the applicant has not violated any of the conditions of the bail, but the trial Court, in an erroneous manner, cancelled the bail of the applicant, who is working as a Constable. In view of the above, learned counsel prays to quash the impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for then State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the grounds, on which, the bail was cancelled vide the impugned order since the complainant/victim had an opportunity to take proper legal recourse to take custody of the baby child, and further considering that there appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the parties and the applicant-husband has raised serious allegation against his wife with regard to her character, this Court does not find any good ground to cancel the bail of the applicant.

For the foregoing, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed.

Consequently, the revision is allowed.