Harnarayan Mishra And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on this first application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicants are apprehending of their arrest in connection with Crime No.223/2020, registered at Police Station Naugaon, Distt. Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of prosecution against the applicants, in short, is that deceased got married with the son of the applicants in February, 2019 and she harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, she was treated cruelly, consequently, she ended her life by hanging herself.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the applicants are residing separately from the deceased. Their son is living separately along with his wife and the applicants are not having any connection with the crime nor they demanded any dowry. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards ration card and other documents to show that both the applicants are living separately and by also drawing attention of this Court towards the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, argued that in the circumstances when the applicants are living in separate house, they are entitled for anticipatory bail, therefore, prays to grant the applicant anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector while opposing this plea, submits that all persons are living jointly. The applicants are living in the same vicinity. The applicants have created forged evidence for saving themselves from the offence. He has submitted some documents in this application. Thus, prays for dismissal of the application.

Learned Panel Lawyer submits that it is verified that both the applicants are living separately in the same vicinity where deceased was residing along with her husband and distance of both the houses is within 300 meters. There are sufficient evidence available on record to show that both the applicants demanded dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, they harassed the deceased, therefore, prays for dismissal of this application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary. Perused the case-laws. No doubt, Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court observed that if the applicants are residing in a separate accommodation, they are entitled for anticipatory bail. During arguments, it is inquired from the counsel that when the applicant started living in a separate residence and applied for separate ration card, this fact came out that both the applicants started living in March, 2020, but, after perusal of the same documents filed by the objector, it is reflected that both the applicants are living with the deceased and her husband before March, 2020, therefore, this Court is of the view that in these circumstances, the views taken by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court are on different facts. After considering other evidence recorded during investigation, this fact came out that both the applicants took part in harassing the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. This Court, prima facie, finds a case against the applicants, hence the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.