High CourtsSingle Bench

Usha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 MP CK 0165

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 328, 498(A)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6664 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 726 words

This first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant, who is

apprehending his / her arrest in connection with Crime No.53/2020 registered at Police Station Aerodrome, District Indore (MP) for offence

punishable under Sections 498-A and 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per prosecution story, on 27.01.2020 newly bride Manisha w/o Bhaveen Parmar was hospitalized at SK Hospital, Airport Road, Indore. It is

alleged that Manisha was given a bottle to drink medicine by her mother-in-law Smt. Usha w/o Roop Narayan Parmar (present applicant); and after

consumption of medicine, she became unconscious. Statement of Manisha was recorded by the Police; and thereafter, FIR was got registered at

Police Station Aerodrome, Indore for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against

the applicant and other family members regarding ill-treatment and physical assault with newly married woman.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the present crime. The applicant is

the mother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant was married to Bhaveen (son of the applicant) on 31.01.2019 and thereafter, she started living

in her matrimonial house. However, her behaviour was cruel towards the applicant and other family members; and she used to beat Bhaveen and

harass other family members. In this regard several complaints were made by Bhaveen and other family members before the Police against the

complainant. However, no action was taken by the Police on the said reports.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that CCTV Camera installed in the house of the present applicant and from its recording (CCTV

Footage), it is clearly reflected that the complainant has beaten Bhaveen, son of the present applicant, which clearly shows her conduct. It is further

submitted that the complainant has made false allegation against Bhaveen son of the applicant and other family members with respect to demand of

dowry and ill-treatment. It is also submitted that complainant made allegation that the present applicant gave her cough syrup and after taking this, she

became unconscious and when she recovered, she found herself in hospital, but she is not aware that who brought her to the hospital. However, the

aforesaid allegation appears to be false, because if the complainant became unconscious in her matrimonial house, after consuming some poisonous

substance, then certainly the applicant and her other family members took her to the Hospital for treatment. But, according to MLC Report, Devendra

Solanki, brother-in-law of the complainant brought her to the Hospital and there is nothing on record to show that how Devendra Solanki come to

know about the incident and he took the complainant to Hospital. It is further submitted that it is a matrimonial dispute; and if the applicant is send to

custody, then chances of compromise in future will be clouded. The applicant is the resident of Indore, District Indore (MP) and there is no possibility

of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the present applicant is ready to

cooperate with the investigation. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application and prays for rejection of the

anticipatory bail application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to grant

anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Smt. Usha w/o Roop Narayan Parmar shall be released on

bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to

the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He / she shall further abide by the

other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6664/2020 stands allowed.

Certified copy as per rules.