Phoolwati Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7171 MP

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                BENCH AT GWALIOR

                    M.Cr.C. No.49992/2021
              (Phoolwati Jatav Vs. The State of M.P.)
                                  (1)

Gwalior, dated : 09/11/2021

      Shri H.D.Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.

      Shri Rohit Misha, Additional Advocate General for the

respondent/State.

Case diary perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties heard.

This is first application, under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant

of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.

417/2021 registered at Police Station Kailaras, District Morena for

the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC.

Allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons,

in short, is that they used to harass the deceased and demand dowry

due to which she had no option but to commit suicide.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant,

aged about 62 years, is mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased

has left behind three small children and there is no one to look after

them. Omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused

persons. Ingredients of S.107 of the IPC are not satisfied so as to

constitute an offence under S.306, IPC. There is no allegation of

harassment soon before death. Learned counsel has relied upon

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amalendu Pal alias

Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal ((2010)1 SCC 707) in which it is HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

M.Cr.C. No.49992/2021 (Phoolwati Jatav Vs. The State of M.P.)

held that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of

accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to suicide,

would not amount to an offence under S.306, IPC. The main

allegation is on Ashok, husband of the deceased. There is no material

on record to indicate abetment by the applicant. With the aforesaid

submissions, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed

the application and prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered

the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

without commenting on merits thereof, the application is allowed. It

is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, she shall be

released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating

Officer. The applicant shall also furnish a written undertaking that

she will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars, as

well as, orders issued by the Central Government, State Government

and local administration from time to time such as maintaining social

distancing, physical distancing, hygiene etc. to avoid proliferation of

Corona virus.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR

M.Cr.C. No.49992/2021 (Phoolwati Jatav Vs. The State of M.P.)

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 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 the case may be;

4. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

5. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

6. If the applicant commits any offence while being on anticipatory bail, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to the Court Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge

(and)

ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2021.11.09 14:35:41 +05'30'