High CourtsSingle Bench

Saloni Jatav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 7 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 MP CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 109, 120B, 193, 307, 498A, 506 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 34559 Of 2023
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

11 paragraphs · 655 words

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

1.

Case diary is available.

2.

This i s first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.107/2023 registered at Police Station Ghatigaon, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 34, 109, 193, 120-B of IPC and Section 25, 27 of Arms Act.

3.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that, applicant Saloni Jatav was having matrimonial dispute with her husband Vishnu Jatav. She and her brother and other co-accused persons made a conspiracy to implicate the applicant's husband Vishnu and his brother-in-law Ravi Jatav; pursuant to which, on 13.07.2023, at about 22 hours, co-accused persons namely, Nathha Gurjar & Ramlakhan Gurjar came to applicant's house and Nathha Gurjar fired on her with a country made pistol, which hit on applicant's forearm; thereafter, she lodged the false and fabricated FIR against her husband Vishnu and his brother-in-law Ravi.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was married to Vishnu Jatav in the year 2018. There was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and her husband Vishnu Jatav about which on 14.09.2018, she had lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.133/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband Vishnu Jatav along-with other co-accused persons Thereafter, on 01.03.2022, applicant's husband Vishnu alongwith other co-accused persons entered into her house and abused and assaulted her about which, on the same day i.e. 01.03.2022, she lodged another FIR bearing Crime No.20/2022 against Vishnu and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, on 13.07.2023, at about 22 hours, applicant's husband Vishnu Jatav along-with co-accused Ravi Jatav came to applicant's house and Vishnu fired on her by a country made pistol which hit in the left forearm of the applicant about which she herself lodged the FIR against her husband Vishnu Jatav and other co-accused person. Applicant's husband Vishnu Jatav is an influential person and at his instance, on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused persons, this false and fabricated case has been made against the applicant. There is no legal evidence against the applicant. She was complainant in this case and sustained bullet injury in her left forearm. The co-accused Nathha @ Hewaran Gurjar has already been granted regular bail by this Court by order dated 03.08.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.33906/2023. Her custodial interrogation is not required. Trial will take time to conclude and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposes the application and prays for its rejection. He further submits that independent witnesses Billu @ Narayan Jatav and Akash Sikarwar in their statements have specifically stated that before the incident, they saw the co-accused Nathha Gurjar and Ramlakhan, while coming and going nearby the house of the complainant. He submits that the offence alleged against the applicant is serious in nature, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7.

Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record, so also other facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to the enlarged on anticipatory bail hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

8 . It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for her appearance before the Trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9.

M.Cr.C. stands disposed of, accordingly.

10.

Certified copy, as per Rules.