Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/9208/2012 of PAWAN SHARMA Vs STATE OF M.P. on 31 December 2012
Sharma Vs. State of MP) 31.12.2012 Shri Sanjay
1
M.Cr.C.No.9208/2012
(Pawan Sharma Vs. State of MP)
31.12.2012
Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Pachori, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
IA No.12660/2012 for urgent hearing during vacation is considered and allowed.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/S. 498-A/34 IPC registered as Crime No.138/2012 at Police Station Phoop, District Bhind.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Considering the allegation against the applicant husband of dowry demand related cruelty and the marriage is said to have taken place in sometime 2004 and the arrest of the applicant may diminish the possibility of a settlement in the future, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application u/S 438 Cr.P.C in the following terms.
It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicantshall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;of the bond executed by him;
Page 1 of 2
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andduring the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
Mehfooz/-
(Sheel Nagu)
V.Judge
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…