Anita and anr. Vs. State

the case questioned the permissibility of grant of anticipatory bail to the accused who was alleged for demanding scooter, tv etc to his wife and her family under section 438 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 - the accused filed application for grant of anticipatory bail - in the instant case the petitioner no. 1 was a married sister-in-law of the deceased and the petitioner no 2 was a husband of the petitioner no. 1 - the accused lived separately in the village that was situated 60 kms. away from the house of the deceased - the court considered the facts and circumstances and allowed the application for anticipatory bail. - - for the state is that in such like cases power under section 438, cr. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of sho/io concerned.order1. on the basis of statement of smt. raj bala, mother of deceased sudesh, case was registered under section 498-a/304b/34, ipc on 13th june, 2001. submissions advanced by mr. ali, advocate is that petitioner no.1 is the married sister-in-law of deceased while petitioner no.2 is her husband and both of them have been staying separately in village barah which is at a distance of about 60 kms. away from the house of in-laws of the deceased in narela; that the role attributed to petitioners in the fir is that whenever the petitioners visited in-laws house of the deceased they used to instigate her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members in complaining that she had not brought scooter, colour tv and cash from her parents. in support of grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners, he has placed reliance on the decisions in dolat ram and ors. v. state of haryana, : (1995)1scc349 ; promila malhotra v. state, 1995 (2) c.c.c 257 (hc); and madhu v. state of punjab, 1998(3) c.c. c 464 (hc). on the other hand, while opposing bail, the submission advanced by mr. sharma, additional p.p. for the state is that in such like cases power under section 438, cr.p.c. ought not be exercised by the court. reliance has been placed on the decisions in samunder singh v. state of rajasthan and ors., : (1986)illj290sc and basant kumar shukla v. komal prasad and ors, ii (1992) ccr 1311. having considered the ratio of the said decisions, the fact that petitioners have been staying separately in village barah as also the role attributed to the petitioners in the fir, i am inclined to admit them to anticipatory bail. in the event of their arrest they will be released on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of sho/io concerned. they will, however, join investigation as and when required by the i.o. dusty. 2. petition allowed.