BAJRANGLAL SINGHANIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THIS is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Admittedly, no F.I.R. has yet been registered against the petitioners so far. However, the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 as well as one Sunil Singhania was served with a notice dated 02.07.2008 by the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station to appear before the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur on 03.07.2008 as required under VHF message No.662, dated 28.06.2008. Though, by ordered dated 07.08.2008 and 12.08.2008 this case was adjourned in order to enable the learned counsel for the State to obtain instruction as to whether any case was contemplated to be instituted against the petitioners, the learned counsel for the State produces a letter dated 17.08.2008 of the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station to the effect that no case has yet been registered so far in the Jharsuguda Police Station against the petitioner No.1 and that on receipt of VHF message from I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur the petitioner No.1 was served with a notice to appear at Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur for reconciliation of the dispute with his wife. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents of one Sunil Kumar Singhania, who is married to one Anita Singhania of Sambalpur. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are respectively son and daughter of petitioners Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner No.4 is petitioner No.3s wife and petitioner No.6 is petitioner No.5s wife. Above said Sunils wife Anita created dissection in the family of the petitioners for which said Sunil was constrained to live alongwith his wife in a rented house in another place at a distance of seven to eight kilometers from their house. While residing with her husband, said Anita used to ill -treat, harass and misbehave her husband in different manners still she left the house after quarrelling with her husband without informing anybody about eight to nine month back. In the background of such relationship between the petitioners vis -a -vis their son Sunils wife Anita, the petitioners received a letter, copy of which is Annexure -1 of this bail application, stating that in view of torture committed by his wife it would be proper to commit suicide than to live in such manner. It is further submitted that above -said Anita as well as her parents and brother are threatening that unless they pay of Rupees 5.00 lakhs to them, they will put the petitioners to trouble by implicating them in a case of dowry torture and dowry demand. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner No.1 received the notice from the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station directing appearance before the I.I.C., Mahila Police Station, Sambalpur which has raised reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that above said Anita had approached the police with false allegations against the petitioners as threatened by her parents and brother.

(3.) IN more or less similar situation, this Court relying upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbla, etc. v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 found it fit to exercise the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail even though no F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioners in Shyam Sundar Jhanwar and Others v. State of Orissa, (2008) 39 OCR 897. The reasoning and ratio in the case of Shyam Sundar Jhanwar and Others (supra) squarely applies to the facts ad circumstances to the preset case.