Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4530/2024 of SMT SAJJOBAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4530 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT SAJJOBAI W/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH, AGED ABOUT50 YEARS, R/O GRAM KHERIYA TOR THANA MEHGAONDISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MR. BRIJ KISHORE KUSHWAH - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION MEHGAON DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ROHIT MISHRA - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This application coming on for Admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.12 of 2024 registered atPolice Station Mehgaon, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence under Sections306 and 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocentand has been falsely implicated. Applicant is a widow woman aged about 50years. Further submission is that marriage of deceased and her son solemnizedbefore 8 years, however, there is nothing on record to show that the deceasedever lodged any report regarding alleged harassment by the present applicant- accused. Further submission is that if the entire prosecution story deemed to betrue, the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC does not attract. It is further arguedthat applicant is the permanent resident of District Bhind (M.P.) having nocriminal history and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering withthe prosecution evidence. Applicant is the reputed citizen of the society and ifshe is sent to jail, her reputation would get diminished. Under thesecircumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diaryavailable on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materialavailable on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case,this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, theapplicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)with a solvent surety inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/InvestigatingAuthority.
The applicant shall further abide by other conditions enumerated underSection 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.
(LJ*)
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGE