Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3130/2024 of DEEPESH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3130 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DEEPESH YADAV S/O SHRI NEELAM SINGHYADAV, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:STUDENT VILLAGE SHAVAZPUR THANA ARONDISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI R.K. SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGEPOLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATIONARON DISTRICT GUNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )
This application coming on for admission this day, th e 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
1. This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed bythe applicant who is a young man aged 23 years apprehending his arrest inconnection with Crime No.57/2019, registered at Police Station- Aron,District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 498 - A, 304-B,34 of IPC.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that applicant who is a young man aged 23 years apprehending his arrest on the basis ofregistration of offence as referred above. During investigation, police didnot arrest the applicant because during investigation it was found thatapplicant is living separately at village Sungayaie and he does not have anydirect interference in day to day affairs of the household. Therefore, he hasno direct role to cause abetment to his sister-in-law (HkkHkh) who committedsuicide because of the harassment meted out to her for dowry demand.Incidentally, police did not file charge sheet against applicant and duringframing of charge also applicant was arrayed as accused and/or chargewas not framed against him. At the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. whencomplainant appeared in the dock and referred the name of presentapplicant in the commission of offence and, therefore, summons havebeen issued. Since applicant apprehends his arrest because of nature ofallegations, therefore, applicant is before this Court. Applicant does notbear any criminal record. Confinement may bring social disrepute andpersonal inconvenience. Applicant undertakes to cooperate ininvestigation/trial. He is ready to abide by all the terms and condition asimposed by this Court. Under these grounds, he prayed for anticipatorybail.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.However, he fairly submits that applicant does not bear any criminalrecord and during investigation role of applicant was not found to beimplicative. Therefore, charge sheet against parents-in-law of deceasedwas filed.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. Considering the submissions, this Court intends t o allow theapplication, therefore, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, theapplicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sumof Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of thelike amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.
6. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of thefollowing conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms andconditions of the bond executed by him; conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/ trial,as the case may be; as the case may be; 3 . The applicant will not indulge himself in extendinginducement, threat or promise to any person acquaintedwith the facts of the case so as to dissuade him fromdisclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,as the case may be.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to theoffence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournmentsduring the trial; during the trial;
6. The applicant will not leave India without previouspermission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as thecase may be;
7. Application stands allowed and disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
Van
VANDANA VERMA 2024.02.02 18:35:51 +05'30'
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE