Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savitribai Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.20516/2018
(SAVITRIBAI SAHU & ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF M.P.)
Jabalpur; Dated 19/06/2018
Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
This is first bail application filed by applicants Savitribai Sahu and Pramod Sahu under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.290/2018 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B)/34 of the IPC & Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per prosecution case on 28/04/2018 deceased Archana @ Payal committed suicide by jumping in front of the train within seven years of her marriage. The applicant No.1 Savitribai Sahu is mother-in- law of the deceased and applicant No.2 Pramod Sahu is her brother-in- law. It is alleged that the applicants and co-accused Pradeep Sahu, husband of the deceased used to demand a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and also harassed her, due to which she committed suicide.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the crime. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case at the time of incident the applicants were living separate from the deceased. The allegations against the applicants for demand of dowry are general in nature. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation so they be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel of the applicants also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the cases of Ashish Gopaldas @ Gopikishan Lohiya Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 364, Jageshwar Tanti Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 12 SCC 178, and Savitri Agarwal & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2009) 8 SCC 325.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer stating that sufficient evidence is available against the applicants to connect them with the crime, so they should not be released on anticipatory bail.
The facts of the cases relied on by the learned counsel of the applicants do not match with the instant case. In the first case deceased committed suicide after seven years of her marriage. In the second case main allegations related to the offences under Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC against the husband, while applicant who was brother-in-law of the deceased had been living separately from the deceased since long and in the third case Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court whereby High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail of the applicants given by the Sessions Court stating that rejection of bail in non-bailable case at the initial stage and cancellation of bail are required to be considered or dealt with on different basis - very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted.
While in the instant case deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is alleged that applicants demanded dowry and used to harass the deceased, due to which she had been living separately from the applicants in a rented house along with her husband from December 2017. But, there also applicants harassed her and demanded dowry, due to which she committed suicide. So the judgements cited by the learned counsel of the applicants do not help the applicants much.
Looking to the allegations levelled against the applicants in the FIR this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/-
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONIDate: 2018.06.20 17:07:19 +05'30'