Shabeena Begam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8032 MP

                                                                    1                          MCRC-57196-2021
                                         The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                 MCRC No. 57196 of 2021
                                                  (SHABEENA BEGAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                 Jabalpur, Dated : 01-12-2021
                                       Ms. Pratigya Vyas learned counsel for the applicant.

                                       Shri Pradeep Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Shri Prahlad Choudhary, learned counsel for objector. T his is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant. She is apprehending his arrest in connection with

Crime No.728/2021, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District-Tikamgarh, in relation to the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is alleged that applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. There are omnibus allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons with respect to commission of offence. There is no specific allegation of demand of dowry against the present applicant. It is argued that on earlier occasion with respect to the demand of dowry and causing harassment and beating given to the deceased by the applicant and other family members, a report

was made to the Police Authorities on 26.2.2020 at Police Station Kotwali Tikamgarh. Thereafter, as a matter was settled and on assurance being given by the family members, the deceased went to her matrimonial house and started residing there. Within a short span, again there was a demand and harassment being caused with respect to the demand of dowry. On 27.9.2021, it is alleged that there was a phone call from the deceased to her mother pointing out that she has been subjected to harassment and demand of dowry by the husband and other family members and they have also started beating her. They have demanded Rs.2.00 lacs and a Bolero Car. Owing to such harassment, she has committed suicide by hanging her. Even if prosecution story is taken in toto also, then there is no specific allegation against the present applicant. She is a lady aged about 47 years and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:41 IST 2 MCRC-57196-2021 Counsel appearing for the objector who has filed Vakalatnama for opposing the bail application on behalf of the complainant has sought permission of this Court to argue on the matter but no application is being filed seeking permission to assist the Government pleader as required under Coded of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is argued that there is no requirement

of filing any application seeking permission from this Court to argue or assist the government pleader and the aforesaid aspect was considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.933/2014 - Mahesh Pahade Vs. State of M.P. , decided on 18.7.2018 and he has placed reliance upon para 36 and para 37 of the judgment and has argued that even the accused is having a right for fair trial. It is further argued that accused is having a right to file appeal or to file objection in a criminal trial against the accused persons then he is also having a right to oppose the bail application. He is further having a right to file application for cancellation of bail.

It is not a question of the victim not having any right to oppose the bail application. It is a question of filing an application for seeking permission from the Court to assists the Government Advocate or the Government Pleader as has been provided in Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:-

-''301- Appearance by Public Prosecutors-(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.

(2):-If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act there in under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the

Signature Not Verified permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:41 IST 3 MCRC-57196-2021 closed in the case''.

From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that the victim or the complainant is having right to oppose the bail application but for which the permission of the Court is required and only thereafter he can be permitted to assist the Government Advocate or Government Pleader. He can even file the written objection after permission of the Court. But without any permission from the Court the victim/complainant cannot be permitted to object in a bail application by merely filing a Vakalatnama. The case laws which have been relied upon by the objector is with respect to the rights of the complainant. It is no doubt that the complaint is having a right for a fair trial and he is having a right to file an appeal against the acquittal order or

even file an application for cancellation of bail but the same is required to be in accordance with law and procedure as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

After going through the relevant provisions, it is apparently clear that the complainant is not having a vested right to oppose the bail application, without seeking permission from the Court by filing an appropriate application u/s 301(2) of Cr.P.C. In absence of any such application, the complainant/objector cannot be permitted to argue before the Court. Even otherwise, he is having only limited rights to assist the Government Pleader. In such circumstances, the objector in the present case cannot be permitted to assist the Government Pleader or argue before the Court opposing the bail application.

Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application stating that there are allegation against the present applicant regarding demand of dowry and harassment being caused to him. There was a complaint on earlier occasion regarding harassment and demand of dowry and beating against the present applicant and other family members on 26.2.2020 at Police Station Kotwali, Tikamgarh despite of the same, there was continuous harassment and demand of dowry of Rs.2.00 lacs and Bolero Car Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:41 IST 4 MCRC-57196-2021 from the deceased.

In such circumstances, as there are repeated complaints made against the present applicant and other family members, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

irfan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Date: 2021.12.03 11:39:41 IST