indal Ram Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 147; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] liability of insurer - third party insurance held, the insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of chapter xi of the act, particularly section 147 thereof. thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. the insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled]. sections 147 & 96 & m.p. m.v. rules, 1994, rule 97; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] control of transport vehicles m.p. rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting sections 147 and 145 of the m.v. act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled]. - 1, not only a social worker but also president of block congress committee and sahu samaj of multai and having good position in different institutions. 3 and 4 are also having good reputation and lastly it was submitted that there is no criminal history against any of the applicant and prayed for anticipatory bail. state of rajasthan (1986)illj290sc in which held as under :the widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded.orderu.c. maheshwari, j.1. this is an application under section 438 of cr.pc for grant of anticipatory bail.2. the applicant is under apprehension of arrest in connection with crime no. 357/05 registered at p.s. multai, under sections 304b, 306, 498a of ipc and sections 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act.3. counsel for the applicant submits that any of the applicants have not committed any alleged offence, no demand of dowry has been made by them, their behaviour was never cruel towards the deceased chhaya bai @ maya bai. they further submit that no abatement to commit suicide was given to the deceased by any of the applicant. they have been falsely implicated. they further submit that applicant no. 1 is 62 years old while applicant no. 2 being wife of applicant no. 1 is also old in age. they are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, if they are arrested and taken into custody then they would suffer from difficulties. their family has a great respect in their locality. besides this applicant no. 1, not only a social worker but also president of block congress committee and sahu samaj of multai and having good position in different institutions. applicant nos. 3 and 4 are also having good reputation and lastly it was submitted that there is no criminal history against any of the applicant and prayed for anticipatory bail.4. while on other hand counsel for state has submitted that the matter is under investigation and the same is in progress and if during investigation any of the applicant is released on anticipatory bail then proper investigation would not be held by the agency and prayed for dismissal of the application.5. on consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and regarding respect and status of any of the applicant in the society and the locality, they do not deserve for anticipatory bail in view of decision of the apex court in the matter of samunder singh v. state of rajasthan : (1986)illj290sc in which held as under :-the widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded. the high court has granted anticipatory bail in such a matter. we are of the opinion that the high court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. the matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned magistrate to deal with the same on the basis of the material before the court at the point of time of their arrest in case they were arrested. it was neither prudent nor proper for the high court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. we therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. the high court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature. so far as the present matter is concerned, since it has become infructuous, we do not propose to pass any order. subject to these observations, the appeal is dismissed.6. in view of aforesaid dictum of the apex court, i am of the considered view that investigation is in progress, anticipatory bail to any of the applicant should not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. thus, the application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.c.c. as per rules.

Judgment:
ORDER

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant is under apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 357/05 registered at P.S. Multai, under Sections 304B, 306, 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that any of the applicants have not committed any alleged offence, no demand of dowry has been made by them, their behaviour was never cruel towards the deceased Chhaya Bai @ Maya Bai. They further submit that no abatement to commit suicide was given to the deceased by any of the applicant. They have been falsely implicated. They further submit that applicant No. 1 is 62 years old while applicant No. 2 being wife of applicant No. 1 is also old in age. They are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, if they are arrested and taken into custody then they would suffer from difficulties. Their family has a great respect in their locality. Besides this applicant No. 1, not only a social worker but also president of Block Congress Committee and Sahu Samaj of Multai and having good position in different institutions. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are also having good reputation and lastly it was submitted that there is no criminal history against any of the applicant and prayed for anticipatory bail.

4. While on other hand Counsel for State has submitted that the matter is under investigation and the same is in progress and if during investigation any of the applicant is released on anticipatory bail then proper investigation would not be held by the agency and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. On consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and regarding respect and status of any of the applicant in the society and the locality, they do not deserve for anticipatory bail in view of decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan : (1986)ILLJ290SC in which held as under :-

The widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded. The High Court has granted anticipatory bail in such a matter. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. The matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the same on the basis of the Material before the Court at the point of time of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature. So far as the present matter is concerned, since it has become infructuous, we do not propose to pass any order. Subject to these observations, the appeal is dismissed.

6. In view of aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, I am of the considered view that investigation is in progress, anticipatory bail to any of the applicant should not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.