The main legal point established in the judgment is the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34, 120-B of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This is the First application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.01/2023 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34, 120-B of IPC.

3. In brief, case of the prosecution is that deceased Nidhi committed suicide by hanging. On the information, Merg bearing No. 60/2022 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali. Dead body Panchnama was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report, the deceased died due to Asphyxia as a result of hanging within 24 hours. Merg was enquired. During merg enquiry, statements of mother, father and other relatives were recorded in which they have stated that in-laws of the deceased used to demand gold chain and thereafter, started demanding car from the deceased and due to non-fulfillment of their demand, they used to treat her cruelly, as a result of which, s h e committed suicide under suspicious circumstances. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 09.05.2022 with Rajesh. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34, 120-B of IPC against the present applicant/accused and other co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that deceased died due to some unknown reason. Applicant is mother-in-law of deceased. Only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant. Applicant is the permanent resident of District- Morena (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tempering with the prosecution case. She is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. Co-accused Sandeep Kumar has been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 30.01.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4714/2023. Hence, it is prayed that applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed present anticipatory bail application and prayed for its rejection.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

7. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

8. Applicant shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands allowed and disposed of.

10. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules.