SURBHI CHHABRA Vs. AMAR CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant No. 1, under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that the non-applicant No. 1 Amar Chhabra was married with the applicant Smt. Surbhi Chhabra on 20. 1. 2003. The applicant lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Indore and on the basis of the said complaint First Information Report No. 105/04 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506, Indian Penal Code. The non-applicant was arrested by the Mahila Police and, thereafter, produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore on 1. 10. 2004. The non-applicant No. 1 filed an application for grant of regular bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Along with the application, he had also filed a medical certificate of his father Arvind Chhabra which was disclosing that he was advised for taking rest. After hearing the parties and perusing the case diary, the learned Magistrate granted bail to the non-applicant No. 1 subject to his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like sum. The learned Magistrate while granting bail, has considered the fact of grant of anticipatory bail to all other co-accused persons named Rama Chhabra and Ashima Chhabra. The learned Magistrate mentioned in the order that the case of the applicant is not distinguishable from the case of the two other co-accused persons who were released on anticipatory bail. It has also been considered by the learned Magistrate that no objection was present in the record filed by the complainant/applicant. He has also considered that the offences are not punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life and the trial will take its own time for its final disposal. On these grounds, the bail application was allowed by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason while granting bail. On going through the impugned order dated 1. 10. 2004, this Court does not find support to the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant. The learned Magistrate has assigned reasons as mentioned above while granting bail.