Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 687 (MP)

Chandra Kanta v. State of M. P.

2000-07-19

A.K.GOHIL

body2000
This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused-applicant Smt. Chandra Kanta apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No. 205/2000 registered at Police Station Khachrod. District Ujjain for the alleged charges under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The submission of Shri Jaisingh is that the deceased was not residing in the in-law's house but was residing alongwith her father since January, 2000. She died in the house of her own father. The marriage took place on 7.5.1999. The further submission of Shri Jaisingh is that she was suffering from some ailment which was only known to her parents and but it was not disclosed either to the husband or to other members of the in-law's family. Applicant is aged 65 years and is also a heart patient. There is no possibility of her absconding. In the case of Gurhaksh Singh Sibhia v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 1632 ), the Supreme Court has already prescribed the principles and guide lines for grant of anticipatory bail. It has been held in this case that if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for grant of relief. It has been further held that "no hard and fast rules can be laid down in discretionary matters like the grant or refusal of bail. whether anticipatory or otherwise, for the simple reason that a circumstance which, in a given case, turns out to be conclusive, may have no more than ordinary signification in another case." The Supreme Court further held that -- "we would, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which, by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these Courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the Legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application". The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these Courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the Legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application". There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Though the investigation is pending, the incident took place on 7.5.2000 and by this time it is expected from the prosecution that they might have collected the possible evidence. Considering the submissions, looking to the materials collected in the case-diary, the character of the evidence to support and also considering the age and, illness of the accused-applicant and the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interests of justice to allow this application. Under the facts and circumstances of the case this is not a case in which the accused should be deprived of her personal freedom and liberty during the investigation. The applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. It is directed, therefore, that in the event of her arrest, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the I.O. concerned on the following conditions :- (i) that the applicant shall always be available for the purposes of interrogation and investigation to the La. as and when required during the working hours; (ii) that the applicant during this period shall not try to threaten, contact or induce any of the prosecution witnesses and shall fully co-operate in the investigation; (iii) that the applicant shall remain present before the Court on the date of filing of challan and shall seek regular bail before the trial Court. This bail is being allowed only during the pendency of the investigation; (iv) that the applicant shall not abscond and shall not leave the country without prior permission of I.O. This order shall not affect the merits of the case.