HEERALAL KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.243/2015, registered at Police Station Gorami, District Bhind, for the offences under sections 304B and 498A of IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) APPLICANT 's counsel after taking me through the rejection order of the Sessions Court, argued that according to his instruction the alleged incident took place on 10.8.2015 i. e. subsequent to more than one year and four months from the date of marriage of deceased with son of the applicant and at the time of preparing the Naksha Panchayatnama of the deceased, the members of parental family of the deceased were present but none of them had stated any incriminatory thing against the present applicant. In continuation, he said that Merg statement were also recorded on 22.8.2015 i.e. near about after 12 days and if there were prima facie circumstances for committing offence against the applicant then the offence should have been registered on 22.8.2015 but the same was registered on 3.9.2015 for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency. In such circumstances, the allegation put forth against the applicant regarding committing the offence of dowry death of his daughter in law is prima facie suspicious and he further stated that in any case considering the applicant, who is an old person aged about 70 years and there is no direct allegation against him to commit any cruelty to the deceased in her life time and prayed for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant by allowing this petition.

(3.) AFORESAID prayer is opposed by the State counsel Shri Solanki with assisting counsel of the victim above named with the assistance of the case diary, saying that looking to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was happened within one year and four months from the date of marriage of the deceased with the son of the applicant for which sufficient prima facie circumstances are available to draw interference that it was a case of dowry death and further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, so in such premises, he does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail and prayed for dismissal of this petition. In response to some query of the Court, he clearly stated that Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared on 10.8.2015 and at that time members of the parental family including father of the deceased were present but Merg statement was recorded on 22.8.2015 and thereafter offence was registered on 3.9.2015. He has given such information after perusing the case diary.