Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Rajabeti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2016

MCRC-5360-2016
(SMT. RAJABETI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

11-05-2016

Shri Brijesh Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned PL for the respondents/state.

The case diary is available.

This is fourth bail application filed by the applicant/accused under

Section 438
of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending
her arrest by PS Bagchini district Morena in connection with Crime
No.148 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under

Section 498A
and
304B
of IPC and Â¾ of
Dowry Prohibition Act
.
Three bail applications filed by the applicant under
section 438
of
Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail were dismissed by this court as
withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that co-accused
Ravi son of the applicant was granted bail by this court vide order
dated 29.4.2016 on the ground that the witnesses Shyamlal (PW1)
the father, Smt. Saroopi, the mother and Durgesh (PW3) the
brother of the deceased have not corroborated the prosecution
story. Hence, the applicant accused be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the
applicant-accused submits that the applicant-accused has been
absconding since the happening of the alleged incident because of
that, she is not entitled to get anticipatory bail as per judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The state of
M.P. Vs.
Pradeep Sharma
(2014) Volume 2 SCC 171. Learned PL further
contends that the statements of the witnesses recorded in the trial
court relating to the co-accused cannot be read in this case. The
counsel further argues that earlier, three bail applications filed by
the applicant-accused have been dismissed by this court having
considered the arguments of both the parties and the case diary
evidence but the applications were withdrawn by the counsel for
the applicant when he found that the court was not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail. As no change of circumstances has been
found to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused, this
application be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
The applicant-accused has been absconding since the happening of
the alleged incident becasue of that only, she is not entitled to get
anticipatory bail. Moreover, three bail applications filed on behalf of
the applicant were dismissed by this court after hearing the
arguments of both the parties as the applications were withdrawn
by the counsel for the accused when he found that the court was
not inclined to grant bail.

So far as the order dated 29.4.2016 passed by this court in relation
to the co-accused Ravi is concerned, the said order was passed
under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this
court does not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-
accused. However, the concerned PS is directed to take
appropriate steps against the applicant-accused to arrest her
because, she has been repeatedly filing applications for
anticipatory bail unnecessarily before this court.

(M.K. MUDGAL)
JUDGE