Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditya Trivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.5079/2014 (Aditya Trivedi Vs. State of M.P.)
1
8.7.2014.
Applicant by Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Mukund Bharadwaj, Public
Prosecutor.
Complainant by Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate. Heard on I.A.No.4884/2014 which is an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking permission to assist the learned Public Prosecutor.
In view of the averments made in the application, it is hereby allowed. Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned Public Prosecutor.
Also heard on bail application.
This is third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. First application for interim bail has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.4.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2211/2014. Second interim bail application has been allowed vide order dated 13.5.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3815/2014.
The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.686/2013, registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior under sections 304-B and 498-A/34 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, marriage of the deceased took place with the applicant on 30th April, 2012. In the marriage, parents of the deceased has spent Rupees Sixteen Lacs. M.Cr.C.No.5079/2014 (Aditya Trivedi Vs. State of M.P.) 2 However, husband and in-laws started demanding Rs.5,00,000/-. When the deceased told her father, her father went to deceased's matrimonial home and told that he is unable to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. At that time Dr. Ashok Trivedi, Aditya Trivedi, Mahadevi and Arti were present there and they insisted father of the deceased to pay Rs.5,00,000/-. They all used to ill treat and harass the deceased. Deceased gave birth to a daughter, thereafter, again the demand was made and the deceased was harassed. Ultimately, deceased died on 2.10.2013 under suspicious circumstances.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased has left a suicide note in which she has not made any allegation against the applicant regarding demand of dowry and harassment. It is further submitted that co-accused Ashok Kumar Trivedi has been granted bail vide order dated 1.5.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1418/2014. It is further submitted that another co-accused Smt. Mahadevi alias Mamta Trivedi and Smt. Arti @ Anima has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 9.5.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3059/2014 and vide order dated 24.6.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4956/2014 respectively. The applicant is under custody since 4.10.2013. M.Cr.C.No.5079/2014 (Aditya Trivedi Vs. State of M.P.) 3 Trial is likely to take time. Hence, prayed that applicant be released on bail.
Prayer for bail is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that deceased had died within two years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances and the alleged suicide note has been seized after two days. It is further submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial home, hence, the applicant who is husband has to explain in what circumstances she died, but this has not been explained, hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
Case diary perused.
As per the postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased is cardio-respiratory failure due to asphaxia due to hanging. Ramkumar, father of the deceased, Smt. Meena, mother of the deceased and Nandkishore brother of the deceased in their case diary statements have stated that the deceased told them that her in-laws are demanding Rs.5 Lacs. Ramkumar has further stated that when he went to the matrimonial home of the deceased the applicant and his parents were present and they started arguing with him and told that he has to pay Rs.5 Lacs. In the alleged suicide note, it is mentioned that "eq>s ekQ dj nsuk eEeh Tkh vkSj MSsMh vkSj vki ysfdu eS vc vkSj vki lcdks M.Cr.C.No.5079/2014 (Aditya Trivedi Vs. State of M.P.) 4 d"V ugha nsuk pkgrh A esjs ejus esa vki lcdk dksbZ nks"k ugha gS A esjh fnO;k dk [;ky j[kuk A".
It is true that Ashok Kumar Trivedi, father in law has been granted regular bail and the mother-in-law and sister-in-law has been granted anticipatory bail, but their case cannot be equated with the present applicant. The present applicant is husband of the deceased and deceased died within two years of her marriage under suspicious circumstances.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
Consequently, the bail application filed by the applicant stands dismissed.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge pawar/-