ORDER
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
1. Heard.
2. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 23/2007, registered at Police Station, Rajpur, District Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The brief facts are that the complainant namely Asrita Beg was married to applicant No. 3 – Anil Khalkho on 13-5-2005. She resided with her husband for a reasonably long period, during which, she carried pregnancy. However, on certain dispute, she left the company of the husband and in-laws and lodged a written report dated 24-1-2007 making allegations regarding ill-treatment by the husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry. She also stated that even these persons made allegations that the pregnancy carried by her was not from applicant No. 3 (husband) and for all these reasons, she had to live separately along with her parents. On such report, the aforesaid crime was registered against the applicants, who are father-in-law, mother- in-law and husband of the complainant.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the lady does not want to reside with the applicants in her matrimonial house and for this; she has made a false and frivolous complaint against the applicants. He also submits that this is a frequent event in the Society that when a lady does not desire to live with the husband, she makes allegations regarding ill-treatment and on account of such allegations, though false and frivolous, Criminal Cases under Section 489A of IPC are registered against the husband and his relatives. He refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 C.G.Cr.J. 268 (SC). His submission is that present is one of those cases, therefore, the applicants may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application. She reads the contents of FIR (written report dated 24-1-2007).
6. In the matter of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra), where a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Apex Court with a prayer to declare Section 489A of IPC to be unconstitutional an ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are not victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations, the Supreme Court observed vide Para 16 that the object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner (petitioner of that case) many instance have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with the oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. The Supreme Court observed that sometimes adverse media coverages adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentional provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It further observed that it may, therefore, become necessary for the Legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriate dealt with. Till then, the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. The Supreme Court said that as noted above, the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin’s weapon. It also observed that if cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. The Supreme Court quoted the arguments of the petitioner that “the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth”. It is stated that this is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. The Apex Court said that it should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It further said that it is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in mind.
7. In the present case, if we consider the contents of the FIR, lodged by the complainant on 24-1-2007, it shows that she was being treated with cruelty by the applicant on account of demand of dowry. However, the specifications regarding dowry are vague and general pertaining to the items etc.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly considering the contents of the FIR and also that the applicants have a plea of false implication and further that they have also stated that no prima facie case is made out against them under Section 489A as also under Section 323/34 of IPC, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to extent the benefit of Section 438, Cr.PC to the applicants.
9. Their application filed under Section 438, Cr.PC is allowed.
10. It is directed that in the event of arrest of these applicants, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them.
11. This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days from today, during which, the applicants may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court.
Certified copy as per rules.