High CourtsSingle Bench

Mankunwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 MP CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 437(3), 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 324, 498A · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.47727 Of 2022
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

9 paragraphs · 480 words

Vivek Agarwal, J

Lawyers are abstaining from work.

Case diary is available.

This is third application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C") for grant of bail to the applicant, who is in custody since 17.3.2022 in connection with Crime No.106/2021 registered at Police Station Alipura, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 34, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C") and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The first bail application (M.Cr.C No.18388/2022) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.4.2022 whereas the second bail application (M.Cr.C No.33312/2022) was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.7.2022 with certain observations. Thereafter, victim Pooja was examined on 15.9.2022. Besides, the victim, her father Santosh Adiwasi too has been examined.

A perusal of the case diary reveals that the incident took place on 21.4.2021 and the FIR was lodged on 28.6.2021. As per Pre MLC, there were two degree burn all over the body of the victim. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sitarani, the mother of the victim admits that she had received a call from Suraj, husband of Pooja at about 11:00 PM that Pooja had put herself on fire. She had visited Chhatarpur Hospital where Pooja had not given any reason for the incident. On 3.6.2021, when Pooja visited her parents then she had given reason for the incident. Similar are the statements of Santosh Adiwasi, the father of the victim. Victim Pooja (PW.1) admits that she had never made any complaint about demand of dowry and she had also not mentioned this fact either to the police authority or the doctor about her being tortured and put to fire by her in-laws. Since the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded and the applicant is in custody since 17.3.2022 and trial will take time for its conclusion and the main prosecution witnesses are already examined, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, without commenting anything on merits of the matter, this application is allowed.

I t is directed that applicant      Mankunwar W/o.Tulsidas shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for her appearance before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court during pendency of trial. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr. P. C.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.