Smt. Gomati Bai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.493/2020 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Bhind for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the mother-in-law. The husband of the deceased was recently transferred back to Bhind and the deceased and her husband were residing separately. The applicant is a lady aged about 53 years and is suffering from diabetes and other diseases. It is further submitted that this Court by order dated 09/09/2020 passed in MCRC No.32404/2020 has granted bail to the co-accused Dinesh Kaushal.

Per contra, the application is opposed by the Counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that so far as the bail to the co-accused Dinesh Kaushal is concerned, it was granted by considering his health issues. Further the co-accused Dinesh Kaushal is the younger brother of the deceased. The applicant is the mother-in-law. It is incorrect to say that she was residing separately from the deceased. Further the allegations are that demand of Four Wheeler Vehicle or an amount of Rs.5 Lac was made and due to non fulfillment of the said demand, the deceased was being treated with cruelty.

The counsel for the complainant also submitted that it is incorrect to say that the applicant was residing separately from deceased and her husband. It is further submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, it is clear that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The case of the applicant is different from the case of the co-accused Dinesh Kaushal as he was granted bail by considering his heart ailment.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the allegations made against the applicant, coupled with the fact that the deceased was married in the year 2015 and died in the year 2020 under suspicious circumstances by consumption of poisonous substance as well as in view of the specific allegation against the applicant, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.