High CourtsSingle Bench

Kamalesh Bai vs State Of MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 MP CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 306
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 25150 Of 2020
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

22 paragraphs · 429 words

This is first applicant filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.429/2020 registered at

Police Station, Bina, District Sagar for offence under Sections 306/34 of Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution. As per the prosecution story, on 01.07.2020,

there was a quarrel between applicant, Rocky and Guddi Bai. Applicant had allegedly stated during quarrel to Guddi Bai that even if you die, it will not

make any difference to her. Because of this mental torture, the deceased Guddi Bai committed suicide by throwing herself in front of a running train.

Learned counsel submits that applicant is a law abiding married woman. The husband of deceased Guddi Bai had an enmity with applicant's husband.

The false allegation is levelled against the applicant because of previous enmity arising out of an election dispute. Applicant will abide with the

conditions of bail. There is no likelihood of her absconding. She will cooperate with the investigation and will not tamper with the material/evidence in

any manner. Hence, applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

The prayer is opposed by the other side.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

In the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of 2011 (1) SCC 694 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others,) in

my view, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation and exact role allegedly played by applicant, bail

can be granted. No such criminal antecedents were brought to the notice of this Court which may desist this Court in granting bail. No such possibility

of applicant to flee from justice is also shown. Same is regarding possibility of accused's likelihood to repeat similar offence.

Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the applicant

Kamlesh Bai be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith

one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for her appearance before the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation as and when directed. Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall also apply on the applicant during currency of bail. It is made clear that

this Court has not given any findings on the merits of the case.

M.Cr.Cs. are disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.