Dharmendra Rana vs State Of M.P

S.A.Dharmadhikari, J

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Heard on IA No. 17813/2020, an application under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant and his associate is permitted to assist the prosecution.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Case diary perused.

This is first bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C preferred for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.. 531/2020 registered at Police Station Morar District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegations against the applicant in short are that present applicant who is maternal father in law of the deceased Rashmi, alongwith other co-accused persons was involved in subjecting the cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand of dowry of Rs. One Lakh and one motorcycle and ultimately on 16/09/2020 dead body of the deceased was found hanging in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage. On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has falsely been implicated in the matter. He is maternal father in law of the deceased and is residing separately 62 Kms away from the house of the deceased. The omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. The ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC are not available in the present matter. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of COVID-19 outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. It is submitted that applicant is permanent resident of Gram Jakhara Police Station Hastinapur District Gwalior (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide the terms and conditions as may by imposed by this Court, if he is extended benefit of anticipatory bail. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General and counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it is submitted that investigation is pending and custodial interrogation may be required in the matter. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C of uncle of the deceased Niranjan and Raj, specifically allegations have been levelled against the present applicant. Applicant is having criminal history of two cases, therefore, prays for rejection of anticipatory bail.

However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, the first bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C stands rejected.

Certified copy/E-copy as per rules/directions.