CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Kaushalyabai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 September 2012 · Citation: (2012) 09 MP CK 0192

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Waghmare, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 437(3), 439 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M. Cr. C. No. 6679 of 2012
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

6 paragraphs · 350 words

Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, Judge

1.

By this application filed u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Kaushalyabai has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No. 337/12 registered by police station Y.D. Nagar, Mandsaur for offence under Sections 304B, 498A & 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant is a lady aged about 45 years and she is mother-in-law of the deceased, who committed suicide allegedly for demand of dowry. Counsel submitted that the applicant has been implicated on the basis of omnibus statements made by parents of deceased. Counsel placed reliance on Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, & Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, to state that the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of roping in all the family members. Counsel prayed for grant of bail basically because the applicant is lady and would fall under the exception to the conditions of grant of bail.

2.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submission of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the applicant was fully implicated in the matter and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

3.

On considering the above submissions, the impugned order and material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and placing reliance on Preeti Gupta & Kans Raj (supra), I find that application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. The application is, therefore, allowed.

4.

It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.

5.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/s 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. Cc. as per rules.