RAMKALI SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.16792/2014, applicant's application for taking annexed documents on record. The same appear to be relevant in the matter, hence by allowing the I.A., the same are taken on record State counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. Also heard on the petition.

(2.) On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to her in connection with Crime No.427/2014 registered at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrouli for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498 -A, 302, 304 -B/34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the deceased was taken to hospital immediately after sustaining the burn injuries where on the same date the dying declaration could not be recorded but the same was recorded after 3 days. Besides other members of the family, names of the present applicant, the sister -in -law of the deceased and her husband were also stated as culprits in such dying declaration of the deceased. In continuation he said that the applicant being a woman was residing separately with her husband and not with the deceased or her husband. In such premise, prima facie it could not be said that she was present at the time of the alleged incident. Besides this, it was also argued that the applicant is having four minor children. Out of them the youngest child is of 2 years while other children are of the age of 4, 7 and 8 years and after her arrest as well as arrest of her husband in the matter, there is no other person in the family to look after the welfare of the children and in such circumstances, her youngest child aged 2 years is residing with her in the jail. In support of such contention, he has also referred the papers placed on the record and prayed that keeping in view the welfare of the children by invoking the jurisdiction of mercy, the present applicant be extended the benefit of bail by allowing this petition.

(3.) On the other hand, aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer saying that in view of the dying declaration, in which the name of the present applicant is also stated alongwith the co -accused as culprit of the incident. In such premise, she does not deserve for extending the benefit of bail and prayed for dismissal of this petition. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the case diary, although I have found some circumstances in the matter against the present applicant, but keeping in view that the applicant being married woman is having four minor children, out of them her youngest child aged 2 years is in jail with her and after her arrest as well as arrest of her husband, there is no other member in the family to look after the welfare of such minor children, so in the welfare of such children, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is allowed.