RAJKUMARI SIKARWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.59/2023 registered at Police Station- Bargawa, Dstrict Sheopur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

(2.) As per the case of prosecution, o n 9/5/2023 Ramveer Singh Tomar informed Police Station- Bargawa, District Sheopur that his daughter Rama wife of Jitendra Sikarwar has committed suicide around 7'O clock in the evening on 8/5/2023 at her home in village Partwada by hanging herself. Unnatural Death No.004/2023 was registered. During inquest proceeding, family members of Rama informed that Rajkumari mother-in-law, Lokendra brother-in-law (jeth), Pinky sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased Rama used to harass her for demanding share in the family property. On 8/5/2023, Rama called her mother Guddi Bai that her husband manhandled her and her in-laws are abusing her. On such allegations, Police Station - Bargawa registered FIR in Crime No.59/2023 for offence punishable under Ss. 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Statements of all the witness have been recorded and relevant recoveries have been made. Husband of the deceased Jitendra Sikarwar has been arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant, submits that applicant is aged around 70 years, she is a homemaker. It is further submitted that even if the allegations made in the statement of witnesses are taken to be true, no case of abetment of suicide is made out against the applicant. There is no likelihood of her absconsion leaving behind her family and agriculture property. Investigation is almost complete, therefore, there is no likelihood of interfering in the investigation or tampering with the evidence. Jail incarceration would cause great hardship to the family of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of offence, applicant may not be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. Heard learned learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents. Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Thus, the application is allowed.