ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the husband of the complainant. According to the petitioner, his marriage with the complainant was solemnized in January, 2006. After marriage, the petitioner took the complainant to Mumbai, where he is employed in Raymond Apparels Ltd. They remained there and till April, 2006 there was no complaint. Again they came back to Gamharia and there the complainant stayed for some time. Again in the month of November, 2006, the complainant was taken to Mumbai where they remained for several months and returned to Gamharia in May, 2007. The complainant lodged the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Saraikela on 29th May, 2007.
3. According to the petitioner, all the allegations made in the complaint are concocted, frivolous and baseless. The complainant was living with the petitioner in Mumbai, but in the complaint, she has deliberately implicated the petitioner’s father, petitioner’s mother, petitioner’s brother, petitioner’s brother-in-law, his sister. All the allegations are vague and unspecific. The actual intention of the complainant was not to live with the petitioner and to do MBA Course elsewhere, whereas the petitioner insisted her to study at Mumbai. The petitioner tried his best for conciliation and there were sittings of conciliation before the Conciliator in the premises of this Court as well as before one of the Hon’ble Judge of this Court, but the conciliation failed.
4. In course of conciliation, both the parties agreed to live together and for that purpose, they were asked to live together for one month. In course of stay in Mumbai the complainant maliciously and deliberately lodged another compliant with the local police, alleging torture, though the complainant had already lodged a complaint in Saraikela and the conciliation was in progress. It has stated that the petitioner is always ready and willing to keep the complainant with due dignity, love and respect, but she does not want to live with the petitioner. She has also filed an affidavit before this Court that she does not want to resume conjugal life, as no useful purpose will be served. Learned counsellor the petitioner submitted that the said expression states a volume as to how the complainant has deliberately concocted a story to implicate the petitioner in the instant case with oblique motive. It has been submitted that if the petitioner is taken into custody, he shall lose his job and shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. Petitioner’s father is a retired person, he and other members of the family are dependent on the petitioner’s earning. They shall be put to untold hardship, if the petitioner is taken in custody and loss his employment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Gamharia and there is no chance of his absconding; the petitioner undertakes to appear on all the dates as and when his appearance is required and he is ready to take the trial.
5. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint go to constitute a prima facie case, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. The petitioner since after the code of marriage has been torturing the complainant. She was not provided proper food and clothing. She was also tortured by other family members. She was being forced to bring further dowry and lastly she was threatened to be burnt and killed. At the time of marriage also, the complainant’s father has paid dowry of Rs. 6.00 lacs in spite of the same, the complainant is not being properly treated by her in-laws’ family members. The petitioner, in course of conciliation, had undertaken to keep her with all dignity and love. The petitioner had also undertaken that he will make proper arrangement for her MBA study, but in spite of the said undertaking, the petitioner again started torturing the complainant in course of stay in Mumbai. It has been contended that such a person does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
From the facts, materials on record and/submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no chance of further conciliation. The parties were given chance three times, but to no effect. Now thee is no chance of resumption of conjugal life and she does not want to live with her husband. She has complained that her husband even has violated the undertaking whereby he had assured that the will make proper arrangement for her study of MBA Course. It is also admitted that the petitioner has got permanent home of Gamharia within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court below. The petitioner is in employment.
Considering the above and other facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the complainant wants to study further and if the petitioner is not granted anticipatory bail, he will lose his employment and by that aspiration of the complainant will not be fulfilled who wants to study MBA Course, it is, hereby, ordered that the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Court below within a period of three weeks from today. In the event of his surrender within the said period, the petitioner above named, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bound of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela in connection with Adityapur PS Case No. 133 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 439 of 2007 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr PC and that one of the bailers must be petitioner’s family members. The petitioner’s release shall be subject to further condition that from the month of May, 2008, he shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month to the complainant by 15th of each month through fine back draft or by other agreed made, so that the complainant must receive the amount in time. On failure to pay the said amount within the time prescribed as above, this order shall be automatically vacated.
