Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajveer Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2016
1 M.Cr.C. No. 3322/2016
3815/2016
& 3816/2016
M.Cr.C. No. 3322/2016
Smt. Pushpa Bai Vs. State of M.P.
and
M.Cr.C. No. 3815/2016
Rajveer Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P.
and
M.Cr.C. No. 3816/2016
Smt. Santosh Bai Vs. State of M.P.
22.04.2016
Smt. Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prabal Solanki, P.P. for the respondent/State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since all these applications are connected with the same crime number, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to Crime No. 29/2016 registered at Police Station Dimni, District Morena for offences punishable under Sections 306, 201/34 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them. The deceased was daughter-in-law of the applicant Pushpa Bai and sister-in- law of the applicants Rajveer Singh Tomar and Santosh Bai. The deceased died after 12 years of her marriage and therefore, presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act is not applicable in the present case. The overt act alleged against the applicants do not fall within the purview of section 107 of IPC and, therefore, prima facie no offence 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3322/2016 3815/2016 & 3816/2016 under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants. One Ramdakli mother of the deceased and Pramod Singh Parmar cousin of the deceased have executed affidavits in support of the applicants that the deceased was not tortured by the applicants for any reason. On enquiry such affidavits were found to be executed by such persons with free consent. Under these circumstances, no offence is made out against the applicants. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicants. The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants. Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.
Looking to the submissions made by the 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 may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Consequently applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants are hereby allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicants Smt. Pushpa Bai, Rajveer Singh Tomar and Santosh Bai shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).
The applicants shall make themselves available for 3 M.Cr.C. No. 3322/2016 3815/2016 & 3816/2016 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.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider their application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge Durgekar*