(BY SHRI KARAN SINGH THAKUR, ADVOCATE) v. (BY MS. EKTA GUPTA, PANEL LAWYER)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
prayed that the applicant be released on bail
Provisions considered
Judgment
(BY MS. EKTA GUPTA, PANEL LAWYER) .....RESPONDENT This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: Heard with the aid of case diary. ORDER This is the second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Rakesh was arrested on 05/02/2022 in connection with Crime No.75/2022 registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Betul for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Signature Not Verified SAN The first bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22/03/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.14005/2022. 2 A s per the prosecution case, on 18/01/2022 deceased Anju wife of applicant Rakesh committed suicide by jumping into the well. It is alleged that applicant Rakesh husband of deceased used to harass her and demanded dowry, due to which she committed suicide within one year of marriage. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Though, earlier bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit, thereafter statements of Ramesh father of deceased (PW-1), Dilip Yadav brother of deceased (PW-2), Amardas maternal uncle of deceased (PW-3) and Smt. Urmila mother of deceased (PW- 4) have been recorded by the trial Court. They did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. The applicant has been in custody since 05/02/2022. The charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. Though, earlier bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit by the coordinate Bench of this Court, thereafter statements of Ramesh father of deceased (PW-1), Dilip Yadav brother of deceased (PW-2), Amardas maternal uncle of deceased (PW-3) and Smt. Urmila mother of deceased (PW- 4) have been recorded by the trial Court, so there is no apprehension of tempering with the prosecution evidence by the applicant on releasing him on bail, the applicant is in custody since 05/02/2022 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his Signature Not Verified SAN furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as 3 may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :
#1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
#2. The applicant will cooperate in the trial;
#3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
#4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
#5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; Court.
#6. The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial C.C. as per rules. (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified SAN SAN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: prayed that the applicant be released on bail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.