Jyoti Narwariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sunita Yadav, J

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.483 of 2023 registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of IPC.

Allegation against the present applicant is that she committed dowry related harassment to deceased Ananya Narwariya, who died on 04.8.2023.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and

has been falsely implicated. She is sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased and used to live in Ahmedabad, therefore, her involvement in the crime is not established. It is further argued that applicant is a lady having two years old daughter and is a reputed citizen of the society and her incarceration would tarnish her reputation. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and argued that earlier first application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No.45256 of 2023 by order dated 30.10.2023 with liberty to surrender before the trial Court. There is no change in circumstance after passing of order dated 30.10.2023. It is further argued that there is specific allegation against the present applicant about the harassment to the deceased. Her call details have also been recovered according to which her tower location was found at Madhvi Nagar, Gadaipura, Hazira, District Gwalior at the place of incident from 30.7.2023 to 04.8.2023. Under these circumstances, when the prosecution witnesses has levelled specific allegation against the applicant and her presence has also been proved, she is not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

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 at this stage.

Hence, the application is rejected.