[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bandna Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10215
1 MCRC-5448-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5448 of 2026
SMT. BANDNA GOSWAMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Mr. Ranjeet Singh Rawat - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Rohit Mishra - Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Mr. Pradeep Katare, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
This is the third application filed by the applicant u/S. 483 of BNSS/
439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No. 67/2025 registered at
Police Station - Sirshod, District - Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under
Section 103(1), 80, 85, 3(5) of BNS and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that complaint was lodged by mother
of the deceased namely Preeti to the effect that for demand of dowry by the
husband of the deceased along with other family members including present
applicant, they assaulted her badly causing her death. It is further stated that
earlier also demand of dowry was made by the husband as well as other
accused persons. The date of marriage of the deceased was 15/04/2020,
whereas, she died on 07/04/2025 under unnatural circumstances within seven
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10215
2 MCRC-5448-2026
years of her marriage and, therefore, offence in question has been registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submits that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is in custody since 04.07.2025.
He further submits that charge sheet has since been filed and further
custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. After rejection
of earlier bail application, statement of parents of the deceased have been
examined before the trial Court. She has remained in custody for almost
eight months. Since all material prosecution witnesses have been examined,
the question of influencing said witnesses does not arise. The applicant is
permanent resident of District Shivpuri (M.P.) and there is no possibility of
his absconding or tempering with prosecution case. Under these grounds as
well as on the ground of parity, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, as well as learned counsel
for the complainant, have vehemently opposed the bail application. They
contend that the grounds urged in the present application were already raised
in the previous bail application, which was dismissed by this Court on
merits. It is further submitted that since the rejection of the earlier bail
application, the statements of the parents of the deceased have been
recorded. However, rather than aiding the applicant, these witnesses have
corroborated the prosecution's story. Consequently, the recording of their
statements does not constitute a favorable change in circumstances. They
further submitted that this Court has already considered the merits of the case
in a detailed order and found no grounds for relief. As there has been no
substantial change in circumstances following the dismissal of the previous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10215
3 MCRC-5448-2026
application, it is prayed that the present application also be rejected.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
documents appended thereto.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
case diary, it appears that there is no material or substantial change in
circumstances subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier bail application that
would warrant reconsideration or a different view from that already taken by
this Court.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well
as the nature of allegations against the present applicant and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view
that no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Therefore, the
application is dismissed.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
(LJ*)
