Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Guddi Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2016

1 Mcrc.1212.2016
Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. State of M.P.

30.03.2016
Shri P.S. Bhadoriya and Shri Shiva Parashar, Advocates for
petitioner.
Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for Respondent/State.

Perused the case diary.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
This is first application preferred on behalf of the petitioner under

Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory
bail.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offences
punishable u/Ss. 304B read with Sec 34 of
IPC
& under
Section 3
/
of
Dowry Prohibition Act registered as Crime No.3/2016, at Police Station-
Andori, 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.

Investigation is though not complete but appears to be nearing
completion where allegation of dowry demand related cruelty has been
made. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased who died due
to hanging. No anti-mortem injuries were found on the body of the
deceased. Marriage took place on 27.05.2010.

Statement of father of the deceased does not indicate that cruelty
was inflicted soon before death. Mere omnibus allegations were made.
It is further submitted that the co-accused Radheshyam Singh Tomar
has already been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 15.02.2016
passed in Mcrc No.1204/2016. Further, petitioner being a lady of 60
years may not be able to bear the rigors of incarceration. There are no
criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the material placed on
record does not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from
justice. Thus, this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of
2 Mcrc.1212.2016
Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. State of M.P.

anticipatory bail
u/s 438
Cr.P.C to the petitioner, however, with certain
stringent conditions since the investigation is still pending.

It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/-
each to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

This order shall remain subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the petitioner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Till conclusion of investigation, the petitioners shall mark
her attendance at the concerned Police Station once a week.

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

Certified copy as per rules.

(Sheel Nagu)
Judge
pd