Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 8484/2019
(Satish Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, dated : 6/3/2019
Shri R.K.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri Mahendra
Chaudhary, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Purushottam Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gwalior in connection with Crime No.476/2018 registered in relation to the offence punishable under section 304B/34 of the IPC. Marriage of Sarita (since deceased) was solemnized with the applicant on 10/5/14.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he was also involved in subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for Rs.2,000,00/- in dowry, and, ultimately on 17/8/18, dead body of deceased was found hanging, under suspicious circumstances, within seven years of her marriage.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. According to him, there is no direct or THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 8484/2019 (Satish Dhakad Vs. State of M.P.) indirect involvement of the applicant in the said incident. After marriage, deceased and the applicant used to live at Gwalior and the applicant never tortured the deceased in respect of demand of dowry. There is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. Co-accused Premvati and Raisingh have been released on bail vide orders dated 22/10/18 and 1/2/19 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 41295/18 and 4469/2019 respectively and the applicant deserves parity in treatment. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. He is a permanent resident of Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconsion if released on bail. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits thereof, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out.
The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2019.03.07 14:35:53 +05'30'