- (1.) This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Seems lodged an FIR bearing No. 78/14 to the effect that she got married with petitioner on 11.8.98. After 10-15 days, her husband started harassing her and demanding dowry. On 20.1.99, she was shunted out from the house. After a month, husband took her back to his house and on 13.2.2000, a son was born out of the wedlock. After sometime the behaviour of her husband remained normal, but it started deteriorating with the lapse of time upto 2014. On 19.5.14 and 22.5.14, husband, brother-in-law and other members came to the house of complainant and created nuisance. On that, this FIR was lodged.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that marriage of complainant and petitioner took place before 16 years back approximately, petitioner is not an habitual offender, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014 (Special Leave Petition (Cr.) No. 9127/2013 - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. decided on 2.7.2014, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued the following directions: "Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: (1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Sec. 498A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Sec. 41 Cr.P.C.; (2) All police officers be provided with check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); (3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; (4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention; (5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; (6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; (7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction; (8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. We direct that a copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance."
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.;