Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Menda Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2016
1
M.Cr.C. No.3207/2016
(Smt Mainda Bai Vs. State of M.P.)
31.03.2016
Shri Rajmani Bansal, Advocate for applicant.
Ku Sudha Shrivastava , Panel Lawyer for Respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Shrivastava, Advocate for the complainant. Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. The applicant has filed this 1st bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dehat, District Ashoknagar in connection with Crime No.432/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 304B, 306 read with Sec 34 of IPC & Sec 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.
The applicant is in custody since 29.02.2016. Chargsheet has been filed where allegation of dowry demand related cruelty is alleged.
The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased who died due to consumption of poisonous substance and the marriage took place on 30.07.2010.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that as against the date of incident being 25.09.2015, the FIR was lodged as late as on 18.10.2015, which has been explained by the prosecution that after recording of merg, investigation took some time before the FIR could be lodged.
Statement of the mother of deceased recorded u/S 161 Cr.P.C is to the effect that a day prior to the incident, husband of the deceased subjected her to physical cruelty and the applicant 2 M.Cr.C. No.3207/2016 mother-in-law exhorted the husband in doing so. This indicates that no physical cruelty appear to have been extended by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further brought to the notice of this Court another factor which needs to be considered is that two infant daughters of the deceased are in the guardianship of the applicant in jail. It is further submitted that before the trial Court, parents of the deceased have refused to take the guardianship of the infant daughters of the deceased.
The applicant being a woman aged 52 years and having the guardianship of two infant daughters of the deceased and the early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the concept of liberty and that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant and the material placed on record does not discloses the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice,this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs.50,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as 3 M.Cr.C. No.3207/2016 the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/-