Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Mamta Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-22231-2017
sh
(SMT. MAMTA UPADHYAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
2
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 27-11-2017
Shri D.S. Parihar, counsel for the petitioner.
Pr
Shri P.K. Pandey, Government Advocate for the
a
respondent/State.
hy Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 ad of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Mamta Upadhyay in crime no.105/2017 M registered by P.S. Mauganj, District- Rewa under Section of 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. As per the prosecution case, deceased Usha Upadhyay rt was married in the year 2002. She lived along with her ou mother-in-law Nirmala and sister-in-law (Jethani) Mamta. C Both of them used to harass and persecute the deceased. h The deceased sustained burn injuries on 28.04.2016. As ig per the dying declaration recorded by Executive H Magistrate on 01.05.2016., at about 8:00 p.m. on 28.04.2016, there was a quarrel between deceased Usha on one hand and Nirmala and Mamta on the other; whereon, Nirmala and Mamta were abusing the deceased. The deceased asked them to live amicably by sharing everything. When she started to go out, her mother-in-law, Nirmala picked up a kerosene lamp and threw it upon the deceased; whereby, her cloths caught fire. Sister-in-law Mamta ran away. Her brother-in-law (Jeth) extinguished the fire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role sh that has been ascribed to petitioner Mamta in the incident is that she had harassed and persecuted the deceased e ad before the date of the incident and at the time of the incident, she was quarreling with the deceased. However, there was no Pr allegation that she inflicted any injury at the time of the incident, nor can it be presumed that she had common intention with co-
a hy accused Nirmala to set the deceased on fire. The petitioner has been in custody since 18.03.2017 and charge in the matter has ad been filed. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner M Mamta be released on bail.
of Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.
rt However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case ou in their entirety, particularly the role that has been ascribed to C the petitioner in the incident and the fact that she has been in custody since 18.03.2017, in the opinion of this Court, the h ig petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of H the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Mamta Upadhyay, is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certified copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) sh JUDGE e ad Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: vai 2017.11.27 20:48:05 -08'00' Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H