ORDER

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicant relating to FIR No./Crime No.889/2023 registered at Police Station- Madhavnagar, District- Katni (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

A s per prosecution story, on 11.05.2014 marriage was solemnized between the applicant and the deceased and after two years of marriage her in- laws and her husband/applicant harassed her by committing marpeet. After nine years of marriage, there was no child from their wedlock and for which they were blaming the deceased due to such harassment, she committed suicide on 10.09.2023 by hanging herself. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that ingredients of Section 107 or Section 306 of IPC are not present in this case therefore, Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. The other co-accused who are father-in-law and mother- in-law of deceased have been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court.

Custodial interrogation is not required from the applicant. There is no previous criminal record of the applicant. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the cases of Gurucharan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 992, Anand Tiwari Vs. State of M.P., MP Weekly Notes 2016 (II) MPWN 135, M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, AIR 2011 SC 1238, Waseem Vs. State of M.P., M.P. Weekly notes 2015 (III) MPWN 73, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837, Kamaladevi Agrawal Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3846, Panchram & Samailal Vs. State of M.P. MCRC 228/1969, Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and Ors, AIR 2007 SC 2045, Ashok Kumar Sawadiya Vs. State of M.P. M.Cr.C 5656/2000, Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438, Swati Jha (Smt.) and Anr Vs. State of M.P., MP weekly Notes 2010 (I) MPWN 101, Nirmal Jain and Ors Vs. State of M.P., MP Weekly Notes 2008 (II) MPWN 66, Meena Devi and Anr Vs. State of M.P., MP weekly Notes 2015 (II) MPWN3, Hukum Singh Yadav and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. 2011 (I) MPWN 126, Sanju Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998 and State of Kerala Vs. Unnikrishnan Nair, AIR 2015 SC 3351. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to grant the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has strongly opposed the contentions of the applicant and submits that the applicant is the husband of the deceased and he is the main accused while the other co-accused are father-in- law and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that prior to the incident, the applicant and other co-accused used to assault and torture the deceased due to which she committed suicide. It is further submitted that as per statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. witness submitted that blood was oozing from a wound which was present above the eyes of the deceased and there was injury on stomach and thigh and it was also stated that applicant and other co-accused assaulted the deceased and thereafter hanged her. As per postmortem report, abrasion present over left temple region (3cmx.05cm approx). Therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the applicant. After perusal of record, it appears that the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid rulings differ from the present case and are not applicable at present stage. As per statement of the witnesses, it appears that the applicant used to torture the deceased and he is the main accused. Postmortem report reveals that injury was found on the body of the deceased, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed. (PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE shahina