Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1641 (MP)

Har Prasad v. State of M. P.

2014-12-10

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
ORDER 1. That, is the first application filed by the applicants under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 487/2014 registered at Police Station-Banda, District Sagar for offence punishable under section 304B read with section 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicants along with other co-accused persons have subjected to Ramdevi to cruelty for demand of dowry before her death within 7 years of her marriage. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No.1 is father-in-law and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law. It is also that there is general allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry and there is no possibility of their absconding. The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial. They are reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the application. 5. On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 6 It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. 7. The applicants are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigating agency. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others JT 2010(13) SC 247, it is directed that this order shall remain in force till the end of the trial. Pramod Singh Tomar for applicants; R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.