Madhya Pradesh High Court
Murari Lal Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 MCRC-49182-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-49182-2021
(MURARI LAL GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 26-10-2021
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Shri Abhishek Parashar, learned counsel for the complainant. Heard on I.A. No.29803/2021, an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant for assisting the Additional Advocate General.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Shri Abhishek Parashar, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the Additional Advocate General.
Case diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
This is the first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.501/2021 registered at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 34 of IPC.
Allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons, in short, is that they meted out cruelty and harassment to the deceased, due to which he committed suicide. According to the prosecution story, on 30.08.2021 at about 12.00 in the night, deceased, who himself was a doctor, came to the hospital and said that he would stay in the chamber itself. On the next date at about 8.00 in the morning when the staff tried to wake him up alongwith tea, they found that he is not responding. Pulse rate was checked but it was found that he was dead. On the basis of the aforesaid, crime has been registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He is aged about 66 years and is retired 2 MCRC-49182-2021 Government employee and is presently residing in Gwalior. The marriage of the deceased was performed with Shaily Gupta in the year 2007. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are not available, therefore, offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the present applicant. There is no instigation for harassment on the present applicant. The main cause of committing suicide is that the deceased was suffering from erectile dysfunction as well as he had taken huge loan to set up his hospital, which he could not repay in time. The applicant is the senior citizen and if arrested, he may have to face lot of problems and his image would also be tarnished. The applicant is 70% blind. Disposal of the matter will take long time. It is further submitted that in view of outbreak of COVID-19, detention of the applicant in already congested prison may be detrimental. The applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made out.
O n the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the application by contending that on the basis of the allegations and material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It is also submitted that according to the suicide note, the applicant had played crucial role in getting the papers signed forcefully with regard to mutual consent divorce. The suicide not clearly mentions about the incident and the role played by the present applicant. The story is also corroborated with the statement of the brother of the deceased. In fact, deceased did not want to divorce his wife and the because of erectile dysfunction, the applicant was bent upon harassing him, due to which he committed suicide. Investigation is pending. Custodial interrogation may be required. On such ground, prayer for rejection of the bail application has been made.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival 3 MCRC-49182-2021 contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
The application, therefore, stands rejected.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE shanu* Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2021.10.27 14:59:15 -07'00'