Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 531 (MP)

Sukhdev Prasad Yadav v. State of M. P.

2011-05-03

N.K.GUPTA

body2011
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to Crime No. 85/2011 registered Police Station, Umaria, District Umaria for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of the deceased, whereas, applicant No. 3 is sister-in-law of the deceased. The applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, they do not have any criminal past alleged against them. The deceased died due to some mental illness. After her death, parents and other relatives of the deceased have made omnibus allegations against the applicants and other family members but afterwards they realize their mistake and at present, Bhola Prasad Yadav and Guddi Bai parents of the deceased Kiran have submitted their affidavits, in which it is stated that the applicants were not torturing the deceased for any cause. They did not demand any dowry etc. They did not give such statements to the police alleging for harassment and dowry demand. On verification, the SDOP, Umaria found that the affidavits are given with free consent and the parents of the deceased stick on such affidavits, therefore, no offence under Section 304-B or 498-A of IPC is made out against the applicants. The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants. Under these circumstances, they pray for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature. Consequently, this application of applicants under Section 438, Cr.PC is hereby allowed. 6. It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicants Sukhdev Prasad Yadav, Smt. Rajji Bai Yadav and Smt. Gangi Bai Yadav, each shall be released on bail on each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. 7. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. 7. The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.PC. 8. It is made clear that if no time limit has been fixed in other order passed under Section 438 of Cr.PC, then in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2011 SC 312 , such order shall remain in force till the end of the trial. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court before whom challan is filed in such a case, that the applicants/accused should be enlarged on bail with such terms and conditions, mentioned for compliance of the Arresting Authority, even if there is no specific direction in the bail order. 9. However, it is also made clear that if the Trial Court issues an arrest warrant against the applicants due to their future absence before that Court, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective. Certified copy as per rules.