Smt. Hasmukhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5548 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.45102/2021 Smt. Hasmukhi v. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated : 16.9.2021

Shri Shivam Savita, Counsel for the applicant through video

conferencing.

Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.

Shri R.S. Yadav, Counsel for the complainant.

Case diary is available

This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime

No.116/2021 registered at Police Station Badoni, Distt. Datia for

offence under Sections 304 (B), 498 (A) r/w Section 34 of IPC and

3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Initially, Shri Shivam Savita was connected through video

conferencing and after realizing that video conferencing has started,

he switched off the mike and camera and inspite of repeated

instructions, he did not join the proceedings, therefore, it is clear that

he is not interested in prosecuting this bail application.

At this stage, Shri Savita immediately switched on his mike

and camera and prayed for passover.

Since the intention of the Counsel for the applicant was

somehow to get the matter adjourned, therefore, the prayer for

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.45102/2021 Smt. Hasmukhi v. State of M.P.

passover was refused and Mr. Savita was directed to argue the

matter. Thereafter he made prayer to passover the matter because his

file has been misplaced. This conduct of Mr. Savita cannot be

appreciated. This case is listed at Sr. No. 1. He had already joined the

proceedings and switched off his mike and camera immediately after

noticing that court proceedings have started.

Be that whatever it may be.

For the convenience of Shri Savita, the entire rejection order

was read out to him. It is submitted by Shri Savita that the applicant

is a lady aged about 53 years and, therefore, the prayer for

anticipatory bail may be considered sympathetically.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

Counsel for the State as well as complainant. It is submitted by Shri

Singh that marriage was held on 29th of November, 2020 and the

deceased committed suicide on 12th of July, 2021. It is submitted that

the contention of the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is

aged about 53 years is incorrect because in the affidavit which is

given in support of the application, she has disclosed her age as 45

years. Even in the cause title of the impugned order, the age of the

applicant has been mentioned as 45 years. The allegations are that

applicant and other co-accused persons were demanding Rs.50,000/-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.45102/2021 Smt. Hasmukhi v. State of M.P.

and a motorcycle from the deceased and on account of non-

fulfillment of the said demand, they were harassing the deceased.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case as well in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and Ors.

reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, no case is made out for grant of

anticipatory bail. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge ar

ABDUR Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

RAHMAN 2.5.4.20=d604b5a66b413c436e6af99c6fe547304e 1bc26d2b510cc133f1b56faa63e77b, cn=ABDUR RAHMAN Date: 2021.09.16 17:25:15 -07'00'