High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhuribee Wd/O Mohammad Hussain vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 MP CK 0070

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Rusia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 306
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39698 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 513 words

Vivek Rusia, J

This is first application filed under section 438 Cr.p.C seeking anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.620/2021 registered at police station Nagda, district Ujjain for the offence punishable under section 306, 34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution story Aziz was found hanging in his house on 6.7.2021 and on the basis of the report Marg No.39/21 was registered. Thereafter, a

suicide note was recovered by the police and according to which the deceased claimed that he purchased a 25 x 12.6 ft. plot from Abdul Shah on

which Abdullah, the husband of the present applicant, was claiming his possession. After the death of Abdullah his relatives were threatening the

deceased to leave his possession on the plot, therefore, Aziz committed suicide by hanging himself.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the husband of the applicant is having lease deed of the plot in question in his name. The copy of the

lease deed dated 5.2.2021 issued by the competent authority has been filed along with this bail application. Even otherwise, he submits that if there

was a dispute in respect of title of the plot the deceased had a remedy to approach the civil court, hence prays for the benefit of anticipatory bail to the

applicant in the matter.

Learned Panel Advocate opposes the bail application.

The family members of the deceased has not produced any registered document by which he is said to have purchased the plot in question. The

ingredients of section 306 IPC are missing in the matter as there was not abetment on the part of the applicant, therefore, as held by the Apex Court

in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar- (2014) 8 SCC 273 the arrest of the applicant is not mandatory in the matter. Considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merit of the case, the

application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, she shall be released on

bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the following conditions:

(a) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducment, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(c) If the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of anticipatory bail

shall be liable to be cancelled; and

(d) she shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

C.c as per rules.