Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravi Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 4 September, 2015

                                                                1
Ravi Shakya Vs. State of M.P.
                        M.Cr.C. No.6867/2015

04.09.2015
      Shri Deependra Singh Kushwaha, Advocate             for       the
applicant.
      Shri B.K. Sharma Govt. Advocate for Respondent/State.

Case Diary is not there therefore the case is being decided on the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the order of lower court.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

3. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 304-B and 498-A IPC and 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered as Crime No.352/2014 at Police Station Dehat, District Bhind.

4. Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

5. Applicant apprehends arrest in respect of aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the applicant raises the ground of parity by citing the order of enlargement on bail by order dated 1.5.2015 in M.Cr.C. No. 3183/2015. The facts which are reflected from the documents filed by the petitioner and the order of the lower court are that the marriage took place 2 Ravi Shakya Vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C. No.6867/2015 sometime in the first week of July, 2014 and the incident of the deceased committing suicide by hanging herself is about 10 days after the marriage.

6. The petitioner is the husband and appears to be the main accused.

7. The order of the lower court indicates that there are allegation of the demand of dowry by the husband and relatives.

8. The ground of parity raised by the petitioner is of no avail as the bail order dated 1.5.2015 passed in favour of father-in- law and mother-in-law whose age must have been one of the factor weighing in the mind of the court while granting bail.

9. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

10. Accordingly, this bail application deserves to be and is therefore rejected.

(Sheel Nagu) Judge ar