Asha Dubey vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1059

M. M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR
Asha Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave,, Sr. Adv. Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR Mr. Lalit Rajput, Adv. Mr. Aditya Thorat, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Karuna Nundy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Gautam, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh- G.A,, Adv. Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The appellant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, is apprehensive of arrest for offenses under certain sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act. She is not residing with the deceased at the relevant time and was only present when her son was allegedly ill-treating the deceased (!) .
The case involves a situation where the appellant’s son has already been arrested and remains in custody. The prosecution alleges that the appellant was involved along with other co-accused in committing the offense (!) .
It is clarified that, despite the declaration under Section 82 of the relevant Criminal Procedure Code, there is not a complete prohibition on considering applications for anticipatory bail. The Court will evaluate the circumstances, nature of the offense, and background of the proclamation issued (!) (!) .
The Court found that custodial interrogation of the appellant was not necessary, considering the facts and her cooperation in the investigation (!) .
The Court emphasized that the grant of anticipatory bail is appropriate in this case, provided the appellant cooperates with further investigation. The Court also noted that the respondents retain the right to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated or if there are threats against witnesses (!) .
Consequently, the impugned order denying anticipatory bail was set aside, and the appellant was granted anticipatory bail with conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly (!) .

ORDER

1. The appellant is apprehending arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The appellant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Pursuant to the occurrence, the son of the appellant has already been arrested who is still in custody. The case of the prosecution is that the offence has been committed by the appellant along with the above mentioned co-accused.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that she was not residing with the deceased at the relevant point of time. She is only the mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that even the High Court has observed that she was only present when her son was ill-treating the deceased.

4. Insofar as the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the then Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the appellant are concerned, it is submitted that it is not as if there is a complete embargo to consider the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the infor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document