SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Sunita Yadav, J.
Kumari Shivani Tomar – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 4726 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ramrajya Singh Dangi, Advocate, Nitin Goyal, Advocate
Final Result : Allowed

Grant of bail based on changed circumstances and parity with co-accused, without expressing opinion on merits of the case.

Headnote:

Bail Application - Offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - The court allowed the bail application, considering the changed circumstances and directing the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with offences under Sections 302, 304(b), 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the bail application, considering the changed circumstances and directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the applicant, who claimed innocence and cited the grant of bail to a co-accused as a basis for the present application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the changed circumstances and the parity with the co-accused in granting bail to the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Sunita Yadav, J. - The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

2. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No. 68/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304(b), 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that her first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.01.2023 in M.Cr.C. No. 61548 of 2022 and thereafter, co-accused-Geeta Bai has been granted the benefit of regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2023 in M.Cr.C. No.61557 of 2022. Under the changed circumstances, present bail application has been filed by the applicant as the case of the present applicant is in parity with the co-accused, therefore, she should be granted bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant 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 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.

7. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

    1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

    2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

    3) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

    4) The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.

    5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6 ) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

    8. Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

    9. E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

    Certified copy as per rules.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top