Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 11 (MP)

Ayyub Qureshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2023-01-02

PRANAY VERMA

body2023
JUDGMENT Pranay Verma, J. - They are heard. Perused the case diary /challan papers. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the application in so far as it relates to applicant No.1 Ayyub Qureshi S/o. Chote Kha Qureshi. 3. Prayer is allowed and the application is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of applicant No.1 Ayyub Qureshi S/o. Chote Kha Qureshi. 4. This is first application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicants No.2 and 3 are implicated in connection with Crime No.1173/2022, registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Dewas, for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 354, 498-A, 294, 506, 450 of IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibitions Act. 5. As per the prosectuion, prosecutrix was married on 15.6.2021 to applicant No.3 who is son of applicant No.1 and brother-in-law of applicant No.2. After marriage she was kept properly for about two months but thereafter her father-in-law and her Jeth started making demand of dowry in the shape of Rs.5,00,000/-. They used to beat her and pressurized her for getting dowry from her parents. About nine months back Irfan, husband of her sister-in-law committed rape upon her and she narrated the incident to all the family members but they said that she shall have to live in that manner only. Thereafter also they continued to make demands of dowry from her. About six months back she was turned out of the house. On 11.10.2022 her father-in-law came to her parents house and threatened her and again repeated the demand of dowry. Thereafter report was lodged by prosecutrix on the basis of which the applicants have been implicated and arrested for the present offence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants No.2 and 3 submits that applicants.2 and 3 are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. There are general omnibus allegations against them of having made demands of dowry from the prosecutrix. No specific overt act has been attributed to them. The allegation of commission of rape is upon co-accused Irfan and that of going to the house of prosecutrix and threatening her with demand of dowry is upon the father-in-law. There is no allegation against these applicants of either commission of rape or having made any demands of dowry from the prosecutrix. The allegation of commission of rape is upon co-accused Irfan and that of going to the house of prosecutrix and threatening her with demand of dowry is upon the father-in-law. There is no allegation against these applicants of either commission of rape or having made any demands of dowry from the prosecutrix. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed hence further custodial interrogation of these applicants is no longer required. On such grounds, prayer for grant of bail to applicants No.2 and 3 has been made. 7. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against the applicants No.2 and 3, they are not entitled to be released bail. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 9. The allegations as regard demand of dowry have been made by the prosecutrix against all the accused. Against these applicants omnibus allegations have been levelled and no specific overt act has been attributed to them. The allegation of commission of rape is upon co-accused Irfan and of going to the house of prosecutrix and making demands of dowry is upon her father-in-law. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and further custodial interrogation of these applicants is no longer required. Thus in my opinion, applicants No.2 and 3 deserve to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by applicants No.2 and 3 is allowed. The applicants No.2 and 3 are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that applicants No.2 and 3 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. 11. 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.