HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE (SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

M.Cr.C. No. 11655/2021 (Smt. Seema Bai V/s. The state of M.P.)

Date: 02.03.2021 Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Sameer Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the Respondent [OBJ].

O R D E R

This is the Second application filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 419/2020 registered at Police Station Rau District Indore concerning offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498 (A), 34 of I.P.C.

First bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. i.e.

44607/2020 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.02.2021 and within 11 days, this present bail application has been filed on 27.02.2020 without disclosing any change of circumstances. Within 11 days, except counsel nothing has been changed in this case.

On 16.02.2021, learned Senior counsel argued at length, when this court declined to grant anticipatory of bail, he prayed for withdrawal of the bail application. Prayer was allowed and petition was dismissed. Now, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant wants to order of rejection on merit so that she can challenge the order before the Apex Court. This conduct is not appreciable.

On 16.02.2021, this court was ready to pass order on merit for rejecting the bail application, but the learned senior counsel prayed for withdrawal of first bail anticipatory application and within 11 days, second bail application has been filed without describing any change of circumstances.

So far as facts of the case are concerned, the deceased Swati got married with son of the applicant i.e. Amit on 18.02.2018. Thereafter, she gave birth a male child in the year 2019. On 11.09.2020, she consumed some poisonous substance and became unconscious. She was taken to hospital, where she was declared dead. The merg was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on the same day. The dead body was sent for postmortem. As per the opinion of Medical Officer the death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of suspected poison- duration of death is within 24 hours since postmortem examination. The police have registered an FIR under Section 304-B, 498 (A), 34 of I.P.C. against the husband Amit, father-in- law Mahesh Choudhary and mother-in-law i.e. present applicant. The police have recorded the statement of all the family members of the deceased, who have categorically made allegation of cruelty, harassment meted to the Swati for demand of dowry. The police have collected the CDR of the deceased and the complainant, therefore the prima facie, there is allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry. The death took place within seven years of the marriage, hence, there is presumption of dowry death.

As per the Police report, the applicant and other accused are absconding since the date of registration of FIR and a reward of Rs. 2000/- has been declared by the Superintendent of Police. After rejection of the first bail application, the second bail application is not maintainable without there being any change of circumstances as held by Apex Court in case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (SLP (Crl.)

213/2021 order dated 28.01.2021) which is reproduced below:

“As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case dairy and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent No.2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, this court is of the view that no case is made out for grant of antici