VINOD MEENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the fifth application filed by the applicant under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 82 of 2022 registered at Police Station Dehat Sheopur, District Sheopur (M.P.) for the offence under Ss. 302 and 498-A and 201 of IPC. Last application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dtd. 9/12/2022 passed in MCRC No. 56805 of 2022. Allegation against the present applicant is that he along with other co-accused persons committed murder of deceased-Priya who was the wife of brother of the present applicant on account of demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Co-accused Moodi Bai @ Rambilasi Meena and Ramesh Meena, who were the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively, have already been granted bail. After disposal of the last bail application, material prosecution witnesses i.e. father-Sitaram Meena (PW- 2) , mother-Dwarka (PW-3), uncle-Siyaram Meena (PW-4) and Dr. Yatendra Singh Rawat, who conducted postmortem, have already been examined before the trial Court. Further argument is that the statement of PW-1 at para 4 reveals that may be the deceased committed suicide because no marks of struggle was found on the body of the deceased. Further submission is that marriage of deceased and co-accused-Dinesh was solemnized 11-12 years back from the date of incident, however, deceased never lodged any report with regard to alleged harassment for demand of dowry. The statement of PW/2 also reveals that father-in-law of the deceased had partitioned the property and present applicant is living separately. He has further argued that this witness also stated in his cross examination that his daughter threatened to commit suicide by hanging herself. In these circumstances so also in light of the fact that applicant is in custody since 23/5/2022, he is entitled to get benefit of regular bail. Applicant is the permanent resident of District Sheopur (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as Counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(3.) This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-