Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1098 (MP)

Parvin Afsar v. State Of M. P.

2020-10-13

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. - Heard on the question of grant of bail through video conferencing. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Notice of this application was served on the State counsel. Case diary as per the direction of this Court has been produced for perusal and it is accordingly perused. 4. The applicant is apprehending her arrest for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered with Police Station Khajrana, Indore in Crime No.910/2020. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the complainant. He further submits that marriage of complainant was solemnized with Iftikar Khan, son of the applicant, on 27.7.2019 and the parents of the complainant had taken her back to the parental house on 9.2.2020. He further submits that notice demanding maintenance was given by the complainant on 17.2.2020 and husband of the complainant had given reply to the notice on 28.2.2020 expressing that he wants to keep the complainant. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged on 1.10.2020 making general and omnibus allegations against the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant is a widow lady and husband of the applicant has recently expired on 23.8.2020. He also submits that the applicant is aged about 73 years and is suffering from multiple medical problems; such as blood pressure, cardiac problem, diabetes etc. and custodial interrogation is not required and even the notice under Section 41-A(1) of the Cr.P.C. was not given to the applicant and if arrested at this stage, she will suffer serious prejudice and will not be able to bear the pain of being taken in custody. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application and has referred to the FIR allegations as also the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the bail application by submitting that till now nobody has come to take back the complainant. She has also supported the allegations made in the FIR. She also submits that the applicant is likely to leave the country. 8. Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the bail application by submitting that till now nobody has come to take back the complainant. She has also supported the allegations made in the FIR. She also submits that the applicant is likely to leave the country. 8. Having regard to the circumstances which are pointed out and also considering the fact that the applicant is a widow aged lady whose husband has recently expired and also considering her medical condition, I am of the opinion that a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 9. Accordingly the M.Cr.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest, in connection with Crime No.910/2020, the applicant-Parvin Afsar be released on bail upon her furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned, with the further condition that the applicant will appear before the investigating officer within a period of 2 weeks from today. It is also directed that the applicant will not leave the country without the leave of the competent court. She would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 10. Certified copy as per rules.