Oral Order:

1. Mr.Amit Chaudhari, learned advocate submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 - original complainant. He submits that he will file his vakalatnama during the course of the day. He has tendered the affidavit of the original complainant - Rasmikaben Manharbhai Chauhan, which is taken on record.

2. The original complainant - Rasmikaben Manharbhai Chauhan is present before the Court. She has accepted that she has filed the said affidavit and acknowledge the contents and acknowledge her signature. She submits that she has no objection, if the appeal is allowed.

3. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act" for short) read withSection 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the appellant - original accused for the regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No. I - 61/2018 registered with Umreth Police Station, District: Anand for the offences under Sections 376, 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Atrocity Act.

4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that original complainant and original accused No.1, appellant herein were in love for last two years and they got married on 27.05.2016 and, thereafter, they both continued to reside separately at their respective homes and their marriage was not revealed by them to their family members. It is also alleged that after sometime on 21.11.2016, the parents of both the sides gathered and accepted the marriage and, thereafter, the complainant was remarried with Maulesh on 11.04.2018 in presence of the family members. It is also alleged that thereafter, the complainant started residing in joint family and after sometime the accused persons started abusing her regarding her caste and given physical and mental torture and demanded dowry. It is further alleged that on 04.07.2018, the sister- in-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law taunted the complainant that she had ruined the life of Maulesh and the husband and others have given kick and fist blow to the complainant and, therefore, she called 181 and after sometime, the present FIR came to be lodged.

4.1 It is contended by the appellant that pursuant to his arrest, after filing of the charge-sheet, he approached the Sessions Court at Anand for regular bail by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.446 of 2019 which came to be rejected by the learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Anand on 30.03.2019.

4.2 It is contended by the appellant that there is no prima facie case made out against the appellant for the alleged offence and he is innocent and there is delay of almost two months in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation for such delay in lodging the FIR. It is also contended that after filing of the FIR, his wife has materially improved her version whereby the offence punishable under Section 376 came to be added by the Investigating Officer, however, the offence cannot be made out as the appellant is husband of the complainant. According to the appellant, the matter has been amicably settled between them and, therefore, he may be released on bail.

5. Heard Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.Amit Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondent No.2 at length. Perused the material placed along with the appeal as well as police papers.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate for respondent No.2 - complainant have requested to enlarge the appellant on bail, whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State has opposed to the grant of bail.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 [LQ/SC/2011/1492] .

8. It appears from the record that the original complainant - respondent No.2 and the appellant are the husband and wife and the dispute is amicably settlement between the parties. It also appears that the alleged offence under the provisions of the Atrocity Act is not made out. Now, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and enlarge the appellant on regular bail.

9. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.446 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R.No. I - 61/2018 registered with Umreth Police Station, District: Anand on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they shall;

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

(c) surrender passports, if any, to the lower Court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., for a period of six months or till the conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier;

(f) furnish the present address of their residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

10. The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

11. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

12. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail.

13. The appeal is disposed in the aforesaid terms. Direct Service is permitted.