Sidharth Gupta vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 5575/14, an application preferred u/s 301(2) of Cr.P.C.

Looking to the averments made in the application, it is hereby allowed and Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate is permitted to assist the prosecution on behalf of the complainant.

Heard on the bail application.

Perused the case diary.

This is first bail application filed by the applicants u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime No. 349/14 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of I.P.C. and sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per prosecution story, incident occurred on 10/4/14 when some poisonous substance was consumed by Deepti, daughter-in-law of the present applicants. Later on, during treatment, she had died on 12/4/14. Admittedly, she was hospitalized by her husband. When information was given by the doctor, marg was registered. The marriage of Deepti (since deceased) was solemnized with Skand Gupta on 18/11/13, who happens to be son of the applicants.

Prayer for bail was made on the ground that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 10/4/14 at about 10-36 p.m., by the Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar wherein it was stated by Deepti that she has mistakenly consumed "Gehu Ki Goli" a poisonous substance, i.e., Sulfas. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that after a period of fifteen days, the statements of Narendra Kumar Goyal, father of the deceased, Smt. Premlata Goyal, mother of the deceased and Yogesh Kumar Goyal, brother of the deceased were recorded on 27/4/14 whereas on the next day on 28/4/14, the statements of other witnesses, namely, Smt. Sheetal Agrawal, sister of the deceased and Mahesh Chand Bansal, maternal-uncle of the deceased were recorded by the police. In all these statements of the aforesaid witnesses, some omnibus allegations were levied against the applicant No. 2-Smt. Pushpa Gupta. However, no allegations were made against applicant No. 1-Sidharth Gupta. It is also submitted that at an earlier occasion, co-accused Vikas Gupta was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 29/5/14 in Misc. Cri.C. No. 4427/14. Hence, on the above-said premised submissions, it is prayed that the present application may be accepted and the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

The prayer for bail was vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is submitted by the proxy counsel that the dying declaration of the deceased in this case is doubtful because she was well educated and Engineer but on the alleged dying declaration as is evident thumb-impression of the deceased was taken. Apart that the applicants are under absconsion and therefore they are not entitled to seek remedy of anticipatory bail in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma,

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the entire facts and the documents contained in the case-diary has been taken into consideration.

It is admitted that benefit of anticipatory bail was granted to co-accused Vikas Gupta by this court as per earlier order dated 29/5/14 in Misc.Cri.C. No. 4427/14. The second aspect for consideration is that in this case the statements of the witnesses have been recorded after lapse of fifteen days and on perusal of these statements, it is found that there is nothing alleged so far as applicant No. 1-Sidharth is concerned and as regards applicant No. 2-Smt. Pushpa, there are some omnibus allegations made against her. It has nowhere been explained as to why any complaint or FIR was not lodged immediately after the incident. It was also not explained as to why prior to the incident FIR or any complaint was not made against the applicants. Apart that so far as the question of granting of anticipatory bail is concerned, there is no criminal history attached with the case-diary, which may be one of the factors for positive consideration of the bail. Only this much was mentioned in the report submitted by the City Superintendent of Police, Morena dated 26/5/14 that both the applicant alongwith other accused persons were not found present in their respective houses from the date of incident and therefore they are absconders. In this connection, in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), it was held by Hon. Apex Court in para 12 as under:-

From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as ''absconder''. Normally, when the accused is ''absconding'' and declared as a ''proclaimed offender'', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

Similarly, in the case of Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:-

Thus, in a case of this nature, the mere abscondance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of the accused. Abscondance is in fact relevant evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for sustaining conviction.

After examining the case in the light of the principles laid down by Hon. Apex Court, it is found that in the instant matter, neither charge-sheet has been filed nor any arrest warrants have been issued against the accused-applicants by the trial court, therefore, only due to non-availability of the applicants for a very short period for interrogation before the police, it cannot be presumed that they are absconders and guilty. It is an admitted fact that dying declaration of Deepti has been produced by the prosecution itself. Looking to the aforesaid circumstances of the case and the fact that now a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths, this court is inclined to allow this application. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present application is hereby allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) each with a surety bond each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and they will cooperate in the investigation. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.