Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. 111/2015, registered at Women Police Station Udaipur City, District Udaipur for the offences under Ss. 498 -A and 406 IPC, have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by way of this application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner Praveen Kumar was married to the complainant Smt. Bhumika on 14.02.2013. The petitioner No. 2 Naveen Sonkar is the elder brother of Praveen Kumar. Both the petitioners herein are serving in the Armed Forces. It appears that the matrimonial relations between Praveen and Smt. Bhumika run into heavy weather and complaints were filed by Smt. Bhumika with the Women Commission, Government of India as well as with the petitioners' Commanding Officer. Mediation proceedings were attempted but, failed. Smt. Bhumika filed a typed complaint with the SHO, Women Police Station, Udaipur on 13.07.2015 alleging that even before the marriage, the accused persons demanded huge sums of money as dowry and threatened that if the demand was not met, they will not go through with the marriage. Accordingly and under pressure of the accused, the complainant's father handed over two cheques dated 19.02.2013 for a sum of Rs. 2,51,000/ - and Rs. 1,00,000/ - respectively to the petitioner Praveen Kumar only whereafter, the marriage was solemnised. The complainant, went to the matrimonial home after the marriage where she was already ill -treated in the matrimonial home. All the expenses of the Honeymoon were borne by her father. The complainant's husband, who was serving in the Army, was posted at far of stations. He left the complainant at Bhopal with his parents. She was maltreated by the matrimonial relations. Accused No. 4 Shri Naveen used to cast an evil eye on the complainant. On a particular night, she forgot to lock her bedroom on which, Naveen Sonkar came into her bedroom and tried to molest her. She shouted on which, he went away. When she informed her husband, father -in -law and mother -in -law of this incident, rather than giving solace to her, they started hurling insinuations on her character. The complainant thereupon, started feeling that she should end her life. She was taunted that her father had not given sufficient dowry, therefore, she would not be allowed to go to her father's house and shall have to live in the matrimonial home and do all the day to day chores. She was beaten. Her ornaments were retained by her mother -in -law and sister -in -law. The complainant informed her parents about this maltreatment. They talked to her husband. He took her to the post where he was stationed. She stayed with her husband for a few days but, there also, her husband used to assault her. She was continuously taunted that he was a Major in the Army and many better relations offering more dowry were available for him. She alleged that her father -in -law, brother -in -law, mother -in -law and sister -in -law twice tried to poison her. However, the complainant was not desirous of ending her matrimonial relationship and thus, she tolerated everything. On 06.06.2015, her husband dropped her off at her father's house at Udaipur saying that she was not required in the matrimonial home. Her father tried to talk to her husband on which, he agreed to go through a counselling. The counselling was held at Udaipur where, all the accused were present. There, the complainant's father was abused. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - from him. Naveen Sonkar slapped the complainant in presence of everybody. Thereafter, the accused went away. On 23.06.2015, the Commanding Officer of the accused called the complainant and her father to Meesamari (Assam) for conciliation which failed. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 111/2015 was registered at the Women Police Station, Udaipur and investigation commenced.
(3.) Conciliation was attempted during investigation but it also proved unsuccessful. Conciliation was also attempted at the Women Commission where, the complainant had lodged a complaint but the same proved unsuccessful. In the proceedings going on before the petitioners' Commanding Officer, a significant portion of the petitioner No. 1 Praveen Kumar's salary has been ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of monthly maintenance.;