AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. S. Ahluwalia, J
Case diary is available.
This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.867/2017, registered at Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat for offences punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, who is applicant No.2, and is also an Advocate has joined through video conferencing and he made every effort to get the matter adjourned.
It is really shocking that on one hand the life and liberty of a person is important and the bail applications are of urgent nature but on other hand the litigants themselves adopt all types of dilatory tactics to get the cases adjourned so that they can put blame on the Court.
Be that whatever it may be. The applicant No.2 was not ready to listen to any query raised by this Court, therefore, this Court went through the record on his own. It is found that earlier the complainant had made a complaint to the Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat and since the concerning Police Station was of the view that it has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter, therefore, the said FIR was forwarded/transferred to Police Station Raigarh Kotwali, District Raigarh which registered the FIR No. 867/2017 for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that a complaint was also filed by the complainant in the year 2017 and after her preliminary statements were recorded, the Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint by order dated 14.05.2018.
It is not out of place to mention here that the FIR was already taken by Police Station, Waraseoni, District Balaghat at Sl. No.0 and transferred to Raigarh Police Station on 15.11.2017 and Raigarh Police Station also lodged FIR on 29.11.2017. Thus, it is clear that during the pendency of the complaint case, the FIR was already lodged at Police Station Raigarh Kotwali, District Raigarh.
Section 210 of Cr.P.C. provides as under:-
"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.—(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."
Thus, where the investigation in respect of the similar allegation was already pending, the Magistrate entertaining the complaint should have stayed the proceedings and should have called for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation and only thereafter should have proceeded accordingly. In the present case, it appears that the court was not aware of the fact that investigation is already pending, therefore, the provisions of Section 210 of Cr.P.C. were never taken note of, but one thing is clear that on the same set of allegations, FIR in Crime No.867/2017 was already registered in Police Station Raigarh Kotwali, District Raigarh. What is the fate of the said FIR is not known. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in case if the applicants appear before the Trial Magistrate on or before 23.02.2026 and furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Magistrate, then, they shall be released on anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail shall continue till the conclusion of trial.
However, in case of bail jump, the trial court shall be free to issue arrest warrant and shall be free to take the applicants in custody. It is made clear that in case if applicants fail to appear before the Trial Magistrate on or before 23.02.2026 then this order shall automatically stand cancelled.