M.Cr.C. No.4578/2010
03.08.2010
Shri A.P.Singh, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard both the parties.
Case diary of Crime No.59/2010 registered at
Police Station Tala District Satna for the offence
punishable under Sections 498, 304-B of IPC is
perused.
The applicants are apprehending their arrest
in connection with the aforesaid crime.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the applicant No.1 is mother-in-law of the
deceased, whereas applicant No.3 is brother-in-law
of the deceased and applicant No.2 is the wife of
applicant No.3. He further submits that this Court
vide order dated 18/5/2010 has granted ad-interim
anticipatory bail to the applicants No.2 and 3 and
they have not misused the liberty granted to them.
He further submits that the parents of the
deceased have made omnibus allegation against
the present applicants for demand of dowry,
actually the deceased Maya was suffering from
stomach pain, which was intolerable, therefore,
she committed suicide. There was no harassment
to the deceased on the basis of dowry demand etc.,
therefore, they pray for anticipatory bail.
On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for
the State opposes the application mainly on the
ground that the applicant No.1 is the main accused
of the case. There is direct allegation against her
regarding dowry demand and, therefore, in such
grave case bail of anticipatory nature cannot be
given to the present applicants.
After considering the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, at present I
am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant No.1 Sheela
Yadav. Accordingly, the application under Section
438, Cr.P.C. of applicant No.1 is hereby dismissed.
So far as case of applicants No.2 and 3 is
concerned, this Court vide order dated 18/5/2010
has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to them
and they have not misused the liberty granted to
them. In such circumstances, there is no ground by
which a different view can be taken, hence the
order dated 18/5/2010 is hereby confirmed. It shall
be deemed to be the order passed under Section
438, Cr.P.C. from today.
The applicants No.2 and 3 shall further abide
by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of
30 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so
desire, may move an application for regular bail
before the competent Court.
M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari.