Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2023
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 5644 of 2021
(RAMDAS AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 13-04-2023
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sanjeev Singh Parihar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard o n I.A.No.5616/2022, an application under Section 389(1) of
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants.
The appellants are convicted and sentenced in the matter vide judgment
dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District
Chhatarpur (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section
498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-
and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo RI
for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
It is submitted that appellant No.1/Ramdas is the husband of the
deceased. There are no specific allegations against the present appellants
regarding demand of dowry and harassment. The other co-accused have
already extended the benefit of bail. There are material contradictions and
omissions in the statements of the parents of the deceased. He has further
drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the mother and thereafter to the
statement of the father wherein there are material contradictions and omissions
with respect to information being given to them regarding demand of dowry and
harassment. It is submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence available on
record regarding harassment and demand of dowry soon before the death of
the deceased. The trial court has committed an error in convicting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 4/17/2023
5:09:44 PM
appellants. Appellant No.1 has already undergone one year, eight months and
twenty four days in custody as on 21.03.2023 which is reflected from the jail
report. Appellant No.1 is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that
may be imposed by this Court while considering the application for grant of
bail.
Per contra, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application
stating that there is ample evidence available on record against the appellants.
After conviction, appellants have been taken into custody recently. Out of the
total conviction period, appellant No.1 has only undergone one year, eight
months and twenty four days as per the report dated 21.03.2023 given by the
jail authorities. He is the husband of the deceased. Death has taken place by
hanging inside the house of the appellants. Merely, the argument that there was
no demand of dowry is not supported by the statements of the witnesses. The
statements are contrary which clearly shows that there was harassment and
demand of dowry. On earlier occasion some settlement and FIR has taken
place as the parents of the deceased have already interacted with the husband
and their family members not to cause harassment and for demand of dowry
from their daughter. The aforesaid evidence is available on record. The guilt of
the appellants have already been proved before the learned trial court by the
deponents evidence. Under these circumstances, no case for grant of bail is
made out. He has prayed for dismissal of the application.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that the guilt of the accused have been proved before the learned trial court and
the fact that the evidence which have been placed before the trial court has
sufficient material against the appellant No.1. The parents of the deceased have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 4/17/2023
5:09:44 PM
categorically deposed regarding demand of dowry and harassment being
caused to their daughter.
Under these circumstances and looking to the custody period of the
appellants, this court is not inclined to allow this application at this stage.
Application (I.A.No.5616/2022) is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 4/17/2023
5:09:44 PM
