RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI MEGHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order of anticipatory bail in connection with the offence registered at C.R. No.11196017200555 of 2020 for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 323, 498 A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Ss. 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Ss. 3(2)(ii), 5 of 'the Act' registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara City. Abovesaid Ss. are mentioned as it is reflected from the copy of FIR at page 12.

(2.) It is alleged by the first informant in the FIR that on 5/7/2018 she contracted marriage with Nileshbhai @ Ansh Rameshbhai Meghani and after that she used to stay with her parents for some time. However, since 19/5/2019 she alongwith her husband started staying in tenement obtained on rent and there they stayed for about six months. There are certain other allegations against the husband of obtaining loan in her name, which was being paid by the wife " " first informant. It is mentioned that since November, 2019 to January, 2020, before she went to her parental home and she was pregnant, she remained with the present appellants, who are parents-in-law of the first informant. However, it is further mentioned in the FIR that in the month of March, 2020 she had gone to her matrimonial home and there were some heated exchange of words between her in-laws and the first informant. Pursuant thereto, she called up Abhayam help line whereas mother-in-law is alleged to have called the Police by dialing No.100. However, at that time, the dispute was resolved. In the last paragraph of the FIR, it is stated that on 8/5/2000 when she was in her advance stage of pregnancy, father-in-law is alleged to have given push to her and uttered certain words insulting about her caste and thereby invoked the provisions of 'the Act' as also Ss. 498 A, 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Heard Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the appellants. He has submitted that except the words so stated in the last paragraph of the FIR, though she stayed with her in-laws for quite few months, there were no such utterance ever. If, at all, they did not like the marriage or objected to the marriage with the first informant, they would not have permitted her to stay with them. It is further alleged that she being Police Sub Inspector in Central Excise Department, such words were put in the mouth of appellant no.1 knowing the law fully so as to deprive them of their statutory right, which is otherwise available to them to pray for anticipatory bail, and therefore, he has requested that the appellants - parents-in-law be granted anticipatory bail, more particularly, when essential dispute is matrimonial dispute with husband.