Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Nadeem Alias Imran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 2010
M.Cr.C. No. 6298/2010
19.7.2010
Shri B. J. Chourasiya, counsel for the applicants.
Shri N. K. Agrawal, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard both the parties.
Case diary of Crime No.869 of 2010 registered at Police Station Khurai, District Sagar for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506(2) and 304-B of I.P.C is perused.
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in relation to the aforesaid crime.
History of the case in short is that a criminal trial was filed by the Police Station Khurai against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 323, 506(2) of I.P.C on 30.12.2008. On 11.1.2009 the complainant died at her parents house.
Then an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C was made before the trial Court to modify the charges and learned JMFC Khurai in Criminal Case No.1654/2008 vide order dated 14.6.2010 took the cognizance of offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C and issued the arrest warrants against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially case was filed for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and the complainant was taken to the house of her parents. The parents did not inform the police about the death of the complainant and no post mortem has been performed on her body to ascertain cause of her death. The complainant party did not apply to the police for reinvestigation but, it simply filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C before the trial Court whereas trial Court could act on the application on the basis of the documents available on the record. Trial Court was not an investigation agency who could form its opinion without any basis or without any document but, the trial Court has taken cognizance for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C though the trial Court did not take any notice of the fact that it is possible that the complainant could commit suicide at her parents house and cause of death is not known at all. He did not consider the circumstances from 30.12.2008 to 11.1.2009 relating to the case and, therefore, order of issuance of arrest warrant is not legal. The applicants were on bail as per order of the trial Court and therefore, applicants seek for bail of anticipatory nature.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and he admit that no reinvestigation is pending with the Police Station Khurai.
Learned counsel for the objection opposes the application. He submits that some white poison was given to the complainant at the house of the applicants and that was a slow poison and due to that she died after some time at the residence of the parents of the complainant. However, he could not explain as to why the case under Section 302 of I.P.C was not registered or requested to be registered.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Consequently, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest by arrest warrant of Criminal Case No.1654/2008 of JMFC Khurai, applicants Mohammad Nadeem, Sadab, Farhan and Parveen Begum shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 30 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina