VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.

(2.) The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C . for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested on 28.2.2020 by Police Station Mau district Bhind (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.51/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. His first application being M.Cr.C.No.13039 of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.6.2020 with liberty to repeat the same by filing a duly constituted application containing all the particulars.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother in law of deceased. As per prosecution story, the deceased died due to gunshot injury which is attributed to husband co-accused Devendra. Devendra is already in custody. It is submitted that there are omnibus allegations of demanding dowry and causing harassmentto the deceased, against the present applicant. Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court to the memo of Section 27 of the Evidence of co-accused Devendra who happens to be husband of deceased wherein, he has categorically stated that he has killed his wife by gunshot. It is argued that nothing was hidden from the parents of the deceased and the dead body was handed over to them. The marriage of deceased took place on 8.2.2016 and thereafter, there was no such complaint regarding harassment for demand of dowry at any point of time. On the contrary, it is submitted that there used to be some disputes between husband and wife owing to which on 25.4.2020 in evening at 7PM, owing to some altercation took place between them husband co- accused Devendra killed his wife by firing gunshot from his country made pistol. The information was given to the father of deceased by the present applicant and by her husband only and it is argued that the applicant is lady and is in custody and as per provisions of section 437 (1), different treatment should be given to the accused who is a lady. He has further relied upon the order passed by coordinate Bench of this court relying the provisions of section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C in the case of Seemo Bai Vs. State of M.P. Reported in 1987 WN Note 37 wherein, in the similar circumstances, the mother in law was enlarged on bail without commenting upon the merits of the case. It is argued that as the charge sheet has already been filed therefore, there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation. She has shown her willingness to serve the national cause by making contribution of Rs.10,000/- in PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App.