Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kuldeep Dohre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2021

Author:
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench:
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.17877/2021
(Kuldeep Dohre Vs. State of M.P.)
(1)

Gwalior, dated : 6.4.2021

Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for the

respondent/State.

I.A. No.10315/2021, an application for urgent hearing is

allowed.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is first application, under
section 438
of the Cr.P.C., for

grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime

No.172/21 registered at Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior for the

offences punishable under
sections 498A
,
304B
/
of the IPC and

3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act
. He is Jeth (brother-in-law) of

Priyanka (since deceased), whose marriage was solemnized with his

brother Dilip Dohare on 26/4/2019.

Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along

with other accused persons was involved in subjecting Priyanka to

cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry

and, ultimately, on 3/3/2021, dead body of Priyanka was found

hanging in her matrimonial home only under suspicious
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C.No.17877/2021

(
Kuldeep Dohre Vs. State of M.P
.)

(2)

circumstances.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant

being brother-in-law of the deceased, has been falsely implicated.

He has been residing separately in Surat (Gujarat). Omnibus

allegations have been levelled against all the family members and

no specific overt act has been assigned to the applicant. Mother of

the applicant is suffering from Cancer and is under treatment. Due

to COVID-19 outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested

prisons may be detrimental. The applicant is a permanent resident of

Surat (Gujarat) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or

tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid

submissions, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has

opposed the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection.

It is submitted that from the statements of witnesses, it is clear that

demand of Rs.8 lacs in dowry had already been fulfilled, but the

deceased was being harassed for remaining Rs.2 lacs. Besides,

parents of the deceased have categorically stated that all the family

members were involved in demanding dowry and meting out cruelty

and harassment to the deceased. Investigation is pending and

custodial interrogation may be required.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C.No.17877/2021

(
Kuldeep Dohre Vs. State of M.P
.)

(3)

In response, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

applicant being brother-in-law is a distant relative. He has been

staying in an altogether different city in Gujarat and has been roped

in just because he is a family member.

To buttress his submissions,

attention has been invited to decision of the Apex Court in the case

of
K.Subba Rao and Others Vs. State of Telangana
((2018)14

SCC 452), wherein it has been held that the Courts should be

careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes

pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.

However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the

rival contentions at this juncture.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances

of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the

case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail

to the applicant.

The application is, accordingly, allowed and it is hereby

directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be

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

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority. The applicant

shall also furnish a written undertaking that he will abide by the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

M.Cr.C.No.17877/2021

(
Kuldeep Dohre Vs. State of M.P
.)

(4)

terms and conditions of various circulars, as well as, orders issued

by the Central Government, State Government and local

administration from time to time such as maintaining social

distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation

of Corona virus.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the applicant:-

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

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

3. The applicant will not indulge 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 applicant will not seek unnecessary
adjournments during the trial;

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

6. If the applicant commits any offence while
being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall
automatically stand cancelled without reference to
the Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Judge
(and) [
ANAND
SHRIVASTAV
A
2021.04.07
10:25:21
+05'30'