Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deviram Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2022

Author:
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

Bench:
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2022

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12333 of 2022

Between:-
1. DEVIRAM BAGHEL S/O SUNDAR PAL BAGHEL ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
VILL JIWARA PURANI CHHAWANI PS PURANI DISTT.
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT ANEETA BAGHEL W/O SHRI DEVIRAM BAGHEL
, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GRAM JEVRA, PURANI
CHHAWANI, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI SANTOSH CHOURASIYA, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION P.S. PURANI CHHAWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ROHIT MISHRA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
STATE &
SHRI POORAN KULSHRESHTHA, ADVOCATE & SHRI PRATEEK
KULSHRESHTHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:
ORDER

I.A. No.4038/2022, an application under
Section 301(2)
of CrPC, is taken up,

considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Accordingly, Shri Pooran
Kulshreshtha, learned counsel and his associates are permitted to appear on behalf of

the complainant to assist the State counsel.

This is the first application under
Section 438
of CrPC for grant of anticipatory

bail to the applicants.

Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.06/2022

registered at Police Station Purani Chhawani, District Gwalior (M.P.) for offences

under
Sections 304B
,
,
of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants - Deviram Baghel & Smt.
Aneeta Baghel that the applicants are innocent. They have falsely been implicated in

this case. Applicants are father-in-law & mother-in-law of the deceased respectively.
The deceased died due to her natural death as she was suffering from various medical

ailments. In support of aforesaid arguments, copies of various medical prescriptions

& reports of the deceased have been filed along with this bail application. It is further

submitted that the last rites of the deceased was done in the presence of her parents
and after two days, the FIR was lodged and there is no explanation with regard to

delayed FIR. Applicants have never demanded any dowry from the deceased. Hence,
considering the aforesaid facts, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicants.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have
vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that the case is registered against

the applicants under 304B, 201, 176 of
IPC
. It is further submitted that without

informing to the parents as well as family members of the deceased, her last rites was
done by the present applicant. There was demand of dowry and deceased died within

seven years of marriage. Hence, learned State counsel & learned counsel for the

complainant prays for rejection of this anticipatory bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents
available on record.

It is apparent from the perusal of case diary as well as documents available on
record that the case is registered against the applicants under
Sections 304B
,
,
of IPC, wherein present applicants are father-in-law & mother-in-law of the deceased

respectively against whom there is specific allegation of demand of dowry and the

deceased died within seven years of her marriage. Therefore, considering the

aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

applicants.

Consequently, this first anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Shubhankar

Digitally signed by

SHUBHANKAR MISHRA

Date: 2022.03.11

17:13:02 +05'30'