Sudharlal vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard. Perused the case diary.

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

The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 44/2013 registered at P.S. Rampurkala, District Morena for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201/34 of IPC.

As per the prosecution case marriage of the deceased took place with the son of the applicant on 1.5.2006. At the time of marriage no dowry was demanded. However, after two years of the marriage husband of the deceased got employment as a Teacher. Since then husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing the deceased saying that nothing has been given at the time of marriage and insisting to bring motor cycle and golden chain. On this account in-laws gave beating to the deceased, then father of the deceased Kedar and two other persons went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and asked why they are harassing the deceased, then in-laws of the deceased told that unless the demand of motor cycle and golden chain is not fulfilled, they will not keep the deceased. Deceased died in the intervening night of 14.5.2013 under suspicious circumstances.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated. At the time of funeral of the deceased relatives of the deceased were present. No complaint was lodged at that time. The matter has been reported after long time. Deceased was seriously ill as a result of which she died. It is further submitted that co-accused Smt. Urmila has been released on anticipatory bail. There is omnibus allegation against the applicant. Applicant is an old man of 60 years, therefore, on the ground of parity, prayed for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.

Taking into consideration that marriage of the deceased took place 6-7 years ago. No complaint of demanding dowry and harassing the deceased was made prior to the incident and the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that co-accused Urmila has been enlarged on anticipatory bail, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and she will co-operate in the investigation. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court. C.C. as per rules.