Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Maheshwari Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
1 MCRC No.28129/22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28129 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. MAHESHWARI DEVI W/O SATISHCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
R/O GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR NAYI MASJID,
VIDHUNA, DISTRICT - AURAYYA (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION MANAWAR,
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY KARANJIWALA, GA)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is
apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.541/19 registered
at P.S. - Manawar, District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence
punishable under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution story, on 23.1.2019 deceased was married to
Anuj but after two days of their marriage husband of the deceased Anuj,
brother-in-law Anup, sister-in-law Shikha and mother-in-law Maheshwari
Devi started harassing the deceased for giving less money and not giving
a car. In the same way they started harassing the deceased and tortured
her mentally and physically for the demand of dowry. Due to the said
harassment deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous
substance. Thereafter Merg was registered and after inquiry of the Merg,
police lodged an FIR against the present applicant and other co-accused
persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is
innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this matter. She is a 70
years old lady and suffering from blood pressure. She is mother-in-law of
the deceased. Other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial
Court vide judgment dated 16.3.2020. Final conclusion of trial will take a
long sufficient time. Hence he prays that the present applicant be enlarged
on anticipatory bail.
Per-contra, learned GA for respondent/State opposes the
anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that
present applicant is absconding since 2019 and she has been declared
absconder under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., therefore, she does not deserve for
anticipatory bail.
Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order passed by the
court below.
Considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and also
the fact that an order under Section 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. has been passed
against the present applicant and she has been declared absconder and
proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against her and
accordingly arrest warrant has also been issued against her.
The trial Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed
by the present applicant on merit as well as on the ground that as the
accused is absconding and even proclamation under Section 82/83 of
Cr.P.C. has been issued, therefore, the accused/applicant is not entitled to
anticipatory bail.
In the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2012) 8 SCC 730 in para-12 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"12. From these materials and information, it is clear
that the present appellant was not available for interrogation
and investigation and was declared as "absconder". Normally,
when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a
"proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting
anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against
whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or
concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and
declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of
the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."
In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 171, the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance upon the
judgment of Lavesh (supra) has held that :-
"It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared
as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82
of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory
bail."
The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balveer singh
Bundela Vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 12.5.2020 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.5621/2020 has observed that :-
"if chance of fleeing from justice exists then application under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be rejected and when a person is
declared as proclaimed offender as per Section 82 of Cr.P.C. it
means that factor (iii) of Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C. manifested
in reality or in other words possibility of applicant to flee from
justice converted into reality. To put it differently, Section 82 of
Cr.P.C. is manifestation of "Apprehension" as contained in
Section 438(1) factor (iii) of Cr.P.C."
Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and
behaviour of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till the
end of the trial. In the instant case offence has been registered against the
present applicant in the year 2019 and since then she is still absconding.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 has
held that:-
"92.6 An order of anticipatory bail should not be
"blanket" in the sense that it should not enable the accused to
commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite
protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or
incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in
relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a
future incident that involves commission of an offence."
In the present case the applicant is absconding since 2019. She is
mother-in-law of the deceased. Although other co-accused have been
acquitted from all the charges in the trial, but their evidence cannot be
read in respect of the present applicant. Present applicant was absconding
and she was declared absconder under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, considering the nature of the offence, alleged role of the
applicant and also taking note of the fact that proclamation has been
issued against her under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and she has been declared
absconder, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant does
not deserve for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly the M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Anil Verma)
Judge
Trilok/-
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2022.07.05 19:06:07 +05'30'
