Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Sukhdevi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2020

Author:
Sheel Nagu

Bench:
Sheel Nagu

1 Mcrc.1516.2020

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mcrc.1516.2020
(Smt. Sukhdevi & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior Dt. 20/01/2020

Shri Pramod Pachouri, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. Anuradha Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Shri Vineet Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

IA.640/2020 an application preferred under
Section 301(2)

of Cr.P.C. is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons

mentioned therein.

Learned counsel Shri Vineet Sharma and associates are

permitted to assist the public Prosecutor.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is first application
u/S.438
Cr.P.C. for grant of

anticipatory bail by the petitioners.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with offences

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

Prohibition Act registered as Crime No.534/2019 by Police Station

Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.).

Learned Public Prosecutor 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
2 Mcrc.1516.2020

for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

The petitioner No.1 being mother-in-law (Saas) and petitioner

No.2 father-in-law (Sasur) of the deceased are alleged with dowry

demand related cruelty which led to death of deceased due to

hanging on 08/11/2019.

Marriage took place on 09/03/2016 as against the date of

incident being 08/11/2019.

Reading of statements recorded
u/S.161
Cr.P.C. reveals

omnibus allegations against the petitioners with no specific

allegation of dowry demand related cruelty inflicted soon before her

death.

In view of above and considering the fact that petitioner No.1

being a woman aged about 50 years may not be able to bear the

rigors of incarceration and the material placed on record does not

disclose the possibility of petitioners fleeing from justice, this Court

is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioners but with

certain stringent conditions looking to the nature of offence.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the

case, I deem fit appropriate to allow this application
u/S. 438
of

Cr.P.C. in the following terms.

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

shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond
3 Mcrc.1516.2020

in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with two

solvent sureties each of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the

Arresting Authority.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions :-

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

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

3. The petitioners will not indulge themselves 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 petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused;

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

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

7. Only petitioner No.2 (Daryaab Singh) shall mark his
presence before the police station concerned firstly on
27.01.2020 and thereafter once every week till conclusion of
investigation.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Sheel Nagu)
Judge
pd

PAWAN
DHARKAR
2020.01.20
19:04:31
+05'30'