The court considered the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to ensure the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant has filed this second application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as she has an apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 102/2020 registered at Police Station Devgarh, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, 34 of IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It is alleged that the earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 48901/2020 with a liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail. It is argued that at the time of argument of the earlier application the important factor that in the dying declaration recorded of the deceased the only allegation as levelled against the husband could not be brought to the knowledge before this Court. The husband has surrendered and is in custody. It is alleged that there are omnibus allegation against all the family members. Other co-accused Seema Sikarwar and Girraj Sikarwar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2020 in M.Cr.C. No. 43777/2020. It is submitted that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and is aged about 61 years and is ready to cooperate in the investigation and is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As far as maintainability of the anticipatory bail application is concerned he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Atendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of M.P. in Cr.A. No. 7295/2018 dated 11.10.2018. He has prayed for grant of bail.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail stating that there are allegation against the applicant and the earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2020 with a liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail. The applicant has not surrendered and not cooperated in the investigation till date, but the factum that there are only allegation against the husband in the dying declaration is not disputed by the State Counsel.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in the case of IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID-19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the

Committee may consider appropriate."

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits of the c