Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.35866/2021
(Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)
Gwalior Bench : Dated : 23.11.2021
Shri M.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/
accused.
The present application is being preferred under Section 439 (2)
of Cr.P.C. by the applicant/complainant taking exception to the order
dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Pichhore,
District Shivpuri, whereby the bail application of respondent
no.2/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant
/complainant that daughter of applicant committed suicide whereas she
was minor at the time of commission of offence, therefore, the offence
under Section 305 of IPC has been registered against the respondent
no.2/accused as well as the other co-accused. The trial Court did not
appreciate the same and granted bail. According to him, the trial Court
caused illegality and perversity ignoring the evidence prima facie
surfaced in the case. From the allegation, it appears that respondent
no.2/accused abetted by scolding the deceased and blackmailed for her
relationship to the other co-accused. He relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs.
Mahimananda Mishra, 2018 (10) SCC 516.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.35866/2021
(Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State narrated the events and
supported the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/accused also opposed
the prayer and submitted that the respondent no.2 is a govt. employee
who is (ekSlh) of all co-accused. It appears that deceased and one of the
co-accused have emotional proximity and therefore, present respondent
no.2 opposed it and scolded the deceased for course correction. She did
not abet the commission of offence. She made statement just to protect
her children from being spoiled. He relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Ms. X Vs. State of Telangana amd another,
2018 Cri.L.J. 3070 and Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of
Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349. He submitted that there are differences
between cancellation of bail and rejection of bail. Rejection
/cancellation of bail has narrow scope vis-a-vis rejection of bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
appended thereto.
From perusal of submissions/pleadings and the case diary, it
appears that deceased was apparently in close proximity with one of
the co-accused (K) and whatsapp chat placed by the counsel for the
respondent no.2/accused. The respondent no.2 Bhavna Soni (M.Cr.C.
No.35866/2021) opposed the said relationship and apparently
reprimanded/scolded the deceased for keeping relationship. No
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.35866/2021
(Devendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. The State of M.P. & Another)
photographs have been seized from possession of the accused to bring
home the fact that any of the accused used to blackmail the deceased.
Scope of cancellation of bail is narrower than rejection of the bail.
Even otherwise, at this juncture, both the accused also suffered
custodial interrogation and the charge sheet has already been filed. No
useful purpose would be served to relegate the accused to confinement.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no
case for interference is made out and order dated 28.05.2021 passed by
the Session Court is hereby affirmed. However, the accused shall not
move in vicinity of the complainant and shall not be a source of
embarrassment or harassment to the complainant party in any manner.
The application is rejected.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2021.11.24
18:25:36
+05'30'
