Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kasturi Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.15802/2022
Kasturi Devi Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated:31/03/2022
Shri P.S.Bhadauriya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for respondent/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 her arrest in connection with Crime
No.178/2021 registered at Police Station Ater, District Bhind for
offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
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 applicant, who is the mother-
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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.15802/2022
Kasturi Devi Vs. State of M.P.
statement recorded on 09/11/2021 had not alleged anything against
the applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Tahsildar Singh
has already been granted anticipatory bail by order dated 07/03/2022
passed in MCRC No.8961/2022 and co-accused Lal Singh has been
already been granted bail by order dated 21/3/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.13408/2022. The Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and
there is no possibility of her 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 7/4/2022, she
shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating
Officer).
The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by
the Investigating Officer as and when required. She shall further
abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of
Section 438 of Cr. P. C.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.15802/2022
Kasturi Devi Vs. State of M.P.
It is made clear that in case if the applicant fails to appear
before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before
7/4/2022, then this order shall lose its effect and the Investigating
Officer shall be at liberty to take her in custody.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in 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.
CC as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2022.03.31 18:44:19 +05'30'
