Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48570 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. ANAND SINGH S/O SHRI PYARE SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SECURITY
GUARD R/O GRAM KEVLARI, P.S. HINDORIYA,
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SARASWATI W/O SHRI ANAND SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE R/O GRAM KEVLARI P.S. HINDORIYA
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI NITIN DUBEY, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S. HINDORIYA DISTRICT DAMOH M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI L.A.S. BAGHEL, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Apprehension of arrest has given rise to filing of this first application on behalf of the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.321/2022 registered at Police Station Hindoriya, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2Learned counsel for the applicants sanguinely submits that the applicants are in-law of deceased and there were omnibus allegations made against them with regard to demand of dowry. As per the learned counsel, the incident occurred on 22.06.2022, but FIR got lodged after two & half months without there being any sufficient explanation. He adds that the statements under Section 161 of CrPC were also recorded belatedly, in which, allegations have been made by mother of deceased against the applicants. To unravel the actuality, learned counsel has filed a document, which bespeaks that applicant No.1 was working and residing with applicant No.2 at Raipur and they came to Damoh only after the incident. Therefore, their incrimination on the face of allegations, is nothing but a fallacy.
I n contrast, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and read over the integral part of the case diary and submits that although FIR was registered after two & half months, but marg was registered immediately within two days of incident and therefore the delay in registering FIR cannot be considered fatal, that too at the stage of anticipatory bail. Ergo, the applicants are not entitled to get the umbrella of anticipatory bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances; perusing the case diary and also the documents available on record, but without commenting any view on merits, I am inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 3 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Sudesh Digitally signed by SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA SUDESH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, KUMAR 2.5.4.20=1d5e479f08e68eda8f9271d bbe2c4bc3916264aec736f7c5f58852 57f5eeaeb7, pseudonym=70EE703D36E97ABB20B SHUKLA A3C79C921929E09400A16, serialNumber=7D462390C18350EF7C 40811B12AB45D82AF1259878762BA C356DCFA877F02654, cn=SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2022.10.17 17:33:44 +05'30'