Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Neeraj Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 August, 2019

Author:
Sheel Nagu

Bench:
Sheel Nagu

1 M.Cr.C. No. 35868/19

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35868/2019
(Smt. Neeraj Kushwah Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 30/8/19
Shri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Rajput, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Case diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is first application
u/S. 438
Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner

for grant of anticipatory bail.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offences

punishable u/Ss. 498-A, 304B/34 of
IPC
and
u/S.3
/
of Dowry

Prohibition Act registered as Crime No.294/2019 at Police Station

Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.).

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application

and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the

allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of

Anticipatory bail is made out.

Petitioner who is sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased and said

to be residing elsewhere with her husband is alleged with dowry

demand related cruelty which led to death of deceased due to hanging

on 21/06/2019.

The marriage took place on 11/07/2013 as against the incident

dated 21/06/2019.

The statement of father of deceased
u/S.161
Cr.P.C. reveals

omnibus allegations against the petitioner with no specific allegation

2 M.Cr.C. No. 35868/19

of dowry demand related cruelty inflicted soon before her death.

In view of above and considering the fact that the petitioner

being a woman aged about 32 years who has no criminal antecedents

may not be able to bear the rigours of incarceration and that the

material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of

petitioner fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the

benefit of bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the

case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application
u/S 438
Cr.P.C in

the following terms.

It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner

shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each of

Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the petitioner :-

1. The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions
of the bond executed by her;

2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the
case may be;

3. The petitioner will not indulge herself in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as
the case may be;

4. The petitioner shall not commit and offence similar to the
offence of which she is accused;

5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments
during the trial; and

3 M.Cr.C. No. 35868/19

6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous
permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the
case may be.

7. The petitioner shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit
bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the
place of residence of petitioner or at any other place in the
district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue
Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees
for the next one year by watering the plants and by
installing tree guards at her own expenses. In case the
petitioner is unable to afford incurring of such expenses,
then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest
authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area)
free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under
any beneficial scheme of the Government. The petitioner
shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this
condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this
court may consider cancellation of bail.

8. On complying with condition No.7 aforesaid, the petitioner
is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the
Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on
this information to the DFO concerned.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of

betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate

of district within which the petitioner resides is directed to assist the

petitioner/accused to comply with condition No.7 by extending all

possible financial and material assistance to the petitioner admissible

under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.

The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file

verification report before the trial court concerned after carrying out

inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest

Department duly authorized in that behalf, disclosing as to whether

applicant has complied with condition No.7 or not, and if yes to what

extent

The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non compliance

4 M.Cr.C. No. 35868/19

of condition No.7 shall forthwith communicate the same to Registry

of this Court.

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court

disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate bench in

shape of PUD.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for

compliance.

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel

for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.

A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court

to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial

jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner for execution

of the order in the interest of the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(Sheel Nagu)
Judge
suneel

SUNEEL
DUBEY
2019.08.31
14:44:54
+05'30'