Sita Devi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J

Heard on I.A.No.4694 of 2024, an application U/s 301(2) of Cr.P.C.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist Public Prosecutor in the matter.

This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.12 of 2024 registered at Police Station Porsa District Morena (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the case of prosecution, CHC Porsa reported to Police Station Porsa that on 18.01.2024 a woman namely Naina Aged 32 W/o Ankit Tomar was brought dead who had committed suicide by hanging. Unnatural Death Intimation No.49 of 2023 was registered. Dead body of Naina was forwarded for postmortem examination. The panel of medical experts opined that Naina has died due to Asphyxia caused by ante-mortem hanging. During inquest proceeding, statements of Amarpal Singh Chauhan (father of deceased), Gangadevi (mother of deceased), Girish Singh Chauhan (uncle of deceased) were recorded on 02-01-2024. They stated that Naina was married to Ankit on 19.04.2018. Thereafter, two children were borne out of the wed lock. Before one year of the incident, her husband Ankit father-in-law Jayveer and mother-in-law Sitadevi started harassing Naina with regard to demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. On 19.12.2023, Naina committed suicide due to constant harassment meted out by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. On such allegations, Police Station Porsa District Morena registered FIR at Crime No.12 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 34, 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The investigation is underway.

Learned Counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter due to the reason that she is mother-in-law of the deceased. Applicant is aged 45 years. She is a homemaker. No criminal history is reported against her. There is no likelihood of her absconsion leaving her family and home. There is no likelihood o f tampering with evidence. Applicant is suffering from mental ailment. Applicant is ready to cooperate with investigation. Therefore, applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence stating that specific allegation is levied against the applicant for harassing the deceased for demand of dowry and prays for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. The medical papers submitted by applicant regarding her ailment does not inspire confidence. The investigation is underway. Applicant has not been available for investigation. She is absconding since the date of incident.

Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Thus, the application is rejected.

CC as per rules.