Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1417 (MP)

Sachin v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-05

PRANAY VERMA

body2022
JUDGMENT Pranay Verma, J. - They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers. 2. This is a First application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.271/2022 registered at Police Station Pithampur, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of the IPC. 3. The applicant is in custody since 14.05.2022. 4. As per the prosecution, the deceased Jyoti was married to the applicant on 10.04.2020. She committed suicide on 12.05.2022 by hanging herself. Thereafter the statements of her family members were recorded in which they alleged that the applicant had been making demand of dowry from the deceased ever since the marriage. On account of the harassment having been meted out to her by the applicant, she eventually committed suicide. On the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded, the applicant has been implicated and arrested for the present offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parents of the deceased have been examined before the trial Court and both of them have not levelled any allegation against the applicant of having made any demand of dowry either from them or from the deceased. They have only stated that the applicant used to harass the deceased on account of petty issues including not bringing her back from her house. On the contrary a neighbour Chetan Sharma (PW-3) has stated that about 7-8 days prior to her death the deceased was seen coming out from the house of her neighbour and due to apprehension of getting a bad name, she committed suicide. It is hence submitted that in view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the applicant, who is in custody since 14.05.2022 deserves to be enlarged on bail, particularly when the trial is still likely to take time for its conclusion. 6. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail merely on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded before the trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 8. The parents of the deceased have been examined before the trial Court and they have not levelled any allegation against the applicant of him having made any demand of dowry either from them or from the deceased. They have stated that the applicant used to harass the deceased on small issues and had refused to take her along with him to his house. The neighbour Chetan Sharma (PW-3) has stated that the deceased was seen coming out of the house of neighbour 7-8 days back, due to which she committed suicide. The applicant is in custody since 14.05.2022 and the possibility of the trial still taking time for its conclusion cannot be ruled out. Thus, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. Certified copy as per rules.