Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/51908/2020 of PANABAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
MADHYA PRADESH :INDORE BENCH M.Cr.C. No.51908/2020 (Panabai & Anr. Vs. State
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.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :INDORE BENCH M.Cr.C. No.51908/2020(Panabai & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated :31.12.2020
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Kushal Goyal, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.
Heard through video conferencing on the question of grantof bail.
This is an application filed by the applicants under Section438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
Notice of this application was served on the State Counsel.Case diary as per the direction of this Court has been producedfor perusal and it is accordingly perused.
The applicants are apprehending their arrest for offencepunishable under Sections 306 and 34 of I.P.C. registered withPolice Station – Rajod, District – Dhar(M.P.) in CrimeNo.265/2020.
As per prosecution case, one Radhabai has committedsuicide and the F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants forcommission of offence under Section 306 of the IP.C.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that theapplicant No.1 - Panabai is the mother-in-law of the deceased andthe applicant No.2 - Devkanya is the sister-in-law(Jetahani) of thedeceased. He further submits that the applicants are livingseparately and in this regard, he has referred to the documentsfiled alongwith the application. He has also submitted that there isabsolutely no material in the present case to make out an offenceunder Section 306 of the I.P.C. as the applicants had not abettedRadhabai to commit suicide. He further submits that there is adispute of partition going on between the family members, but thatwould not amount to abetment and the offence will not be made HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :INDORE BENCH
M.Cr.C. No.51908/2020
(Panabai & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.)
out. He also submits that the applicants are ladies and theapplicant No.1 is aged about 55 years and if they are arrestedthey will suffer serious prejudice.
In reply, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposedthe application for grant of anticipatory bail and has referred to thestatement of Sarpanch's Pati – Radheshyam and statement ofAarti recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and alsoconsidering the fact that the applicants are ladies and theircustodial interrogation is not required and that no prima faciematerial in respect of the abetment by the applicants have beenpointed out, I am of the opinion that a case for grant ofanticipatory bail is made out.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed andit is directed that in the event of the applicants arrest, inconnection with Crime No.265/2020 the applicants be released onbail upon their furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/-(RupeesThirty Five Thousand)each with one surety each of the likeamount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the PoliceStation concerned. The applicants are further directed to appearbefore the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks fromtoday. They would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section438(2) Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava)Vacation Judge
pn