SUKHDEV PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to Crime No. 85/2011 registered Police Station, Umaria, District Umaria for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Nos. I and 2 are parents-in-law of the deceased, whereas, applicant No. 3 is sister-in-law of the deceased. The applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, they do not have any criminal past alleged against them. The deceased died due to some mental illness. After her death, parents and other relatives of the deceased have made omnibus allegations against the applicants and other family members but afterwards they realize their mistake and at present, Bhola Prasad Yadav and Guddi Bai parents of the deceased Kiran have submitted their affidavits, in which it is stated that the applicants were not torturing the deceased for any cause. They did not demand any dowry etc. They did not give such statements to the police alleging for harassment and dowry demand. On verification, the SDOP, Umaria found that the affidavits are given with free consent and the parents of the deceased stick on such affidavits, therefore, no offence under Section 304-B or 498-A of IPC is made out against the applicants. The police is unnecessarily harassing ,the applicants. Under these circumstances, they pray for anticipatory bail.