Thasildar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3181 MP

                           1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   MCRC No.8961/2022
           (TAHSILDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 07/03/2022

      Shri P.S.Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri C.P.Singh, learned counsel for the State.

      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 his arrest in connection with Crime

No.178/2021 registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind for

offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

      In compliance of order dated 23/02/2022, the State counsel

has produced the statements of the witnesses recorded during Marg

enquiry. According to the prosecution case, the deceased committed

suicide on 08/11/2021 and the statement of Anupama Baghel was

recorded on 09/11/2021 during the Marg enquiry and in the said

statement, she did not utter anything against the applicant.

Thereafter, it appears that the statements of the parents of the

deceased were recorded on 23/12/2021 in Marg enquiry and

accordingly, the FIR was lodged on 24/11/2021 and the statement of

Anupama Baghel was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on

24/12/2021

, in which she had also alleged against the present

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.8961/2022 (TAHSILDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

applicant, who is the maternal uncle-in-law of the deceased. It is

submitted that once, the deceased had died on 08/11/2021, then

there is no explanation in the case diary to indicate as to why the

Marg Statements of the witnesses were recorded for the first time on

23/11/2021 i.e. after 13 days except Anupama Baghel. Specifically,

Anupama Baghel in her Marg enquiry statement recorded on

09/11/2021 had not alleged anything against the applicant. Even

otherwise the applicant is the maternal uncle-in-law of the deceased.

He has nothing to do with the family affairs of the deceased and her

husband. In case, if he sent to jail, it would spoil his reputation as he

is a reputed member of the society being aged about 60 years. The

applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation.

The Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no

possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution

witnesses.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

Counsel for the State. However, after going through the Marg

enquiry statement of Anupama Baghel, which was recorded on

09/11/2021, it is fairly conceded that no allegation was made by her.

It is submitted that the applicant has a criminal record and one more

offence i.e. Crime No.225/2021 was registered against him in Police

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.8961/2022 (TAHSILDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

Station Phoop for offence under Sections 195-A, 294, 506 and 34 of

IPC.

Considering the relationship of the applicant with the

deceased, coupled with the fact that Anupama Baghel in her Marg

enquiry statement recorded on 09/11/2021 had not spoken anything

against the applicant and without commenting on the merits of the

case, the application is allowed subject to condition that if the

applicant appears before the Investigating Officer (Arresting

Officer) on or before 14/03/2022, he shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation

by the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further

abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of

Section 438 of Cr. P. C.

It is made clear that in case if the applicant fails to appear

before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before

14/03/2022, then this order shall lose its effect and the Investigating

Officer shall be at liberty to take him in custody.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.8961/2022 (TAHSILDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P.)

the case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on

18/3/2021 in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation

regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                                                  (G.S. Ahluwalia)
Pj'S/-                                                                  Judge
         Digitally signed by
         PRINCEE BARAIYA
         Date: 2022.03.07
         17:19:12 -08'00'