Rajendari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

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

This is first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

Applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.127/2019 registered at Police Station Mihona, District Bhind, for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Smt. Rajendari that the applicant has been falsely implicated. She is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she is residing at other place. It is further submitted that co-accused- Guddi Devi @ Arun Kumari has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 02/12/2019. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the present applicant. Omnibus allegations are made against the present applicant. Hence, prayed to grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application and submitted that since co-accused was sister-in-law of the deceased and unmarried lady, this Court has been granted bail to the co-accused but the present applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is main culprit in the case and now charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, in the light of the Apex Court's judgment, the present application is not maintainable.

Looking to the allegations leveled against the applicant as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be an appropriate case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, it is rejected.