PIYUSH PAVANKUMAR GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191030230021 of 2023 registered with Pashchim Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 406, 313, 323, 384, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He has submitted that the complainant is the wife of the present applicant and has filed the FIR falsely implicating the present applicant only with a view to ruin his career and to settle the score. No offence as alleged has been committed by the present applicant. Even the complainant has accepted on the face of it that there is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and no custodial interrogation of present applicant is required. Still however, the complainant is intended to see to it that the applicant is behind the bars. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent. The allegation in the FIR reveals matrimonial differences between the complainant and the applicant. The allegation of abortion is nothing but with a view to falsely implicate the accused and increase the gravity of offence and is totally baseless. The miscarriage was natural and on the contrary the complainant did not wish to keep the child or pregnancy as she wanted to get separate from the present applicant. First time, the natural miscarriage took place and thereafter, once again the complainant became pregnant and full care was taken by the applicant and complainant had given birth to a baby girl on 30/4/2022. Further, he has submitted that from the year 2018, complainant and the present applicant started residing separately and they are not residing in joint family. There is no any direct or indirect allegation leveled against the present applicant which may be treated as serious allegation.

(3.) Per contra, learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta has opposed the present application and stated that the applicant is facing charge under Sec. 313 of the IPC and hence, considering the offence against woman, he has requested to dismiss the present application.