Shivmohan vs State Of M.P

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Porsa, District Morena in connection with Crime No.19/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 306, 34 of IPC.

It is submitted that the earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.09.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.31019/2020. The applicant is a husband of the deceased. It is submitted that he is in custody since16.07.2020. Investigation is over in the matter and charge sheet has been filed on 4.9.2020. It is argued that there are omnibus allegations against all the family members including the present applicant who is the husband. The offence under Section 306/34 of IPC is being registered by the police authorities but there is no material on record which could have attracted the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das vs Kartar Singh & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 664 and has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely demand of dowry and harassment will not constitute an offence under Sections 306 and 107 of IPC. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has held that there should be specific allegations to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. As the charge sheet has been filed in the matter on 4.9.2020, there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He prays for grant of bail.

Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the application stating that the applicant is a husband and is having the utmost responsibility towards his wife. Death has taken place inside the matrimonial house. Therefore, the husband is required to demonstrate the fact that why the wife has committed suicide in their house. The statements of father and mother of the deceased are being read over to this Court wherein they have categorically stated regarding demand of dowry and harassment being caused by the present applicant and other family members. It is further pointed out that the deceased was being harassed to the extent that she was made to live in a separate hut and not in the house with the applicant. It is submitted that she was subjected to harassment by the present applicant and the other family members. All the other family members are already extended the benefit of bail but the present applicant being the husband is required to demonstrate the fact that why she has committed suicide in his house. He has prayed for rejection of the application.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the applicant being the husband is having the utmost responsibility towards his wife and the death has taken place in the house of the applicant and looking to the custody period of the present applicant, this Court is not inclined to allow this application at this stage. Accordingly, the application is rejected.