Madhuri Gendle v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6823 of 2016 • Madhuri Gendle W/o Girish Gendle Aged About 32 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Jayram Nagar Road, Masturi, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For the applicant :

Mrs. Kiran Jain, Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr. Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 04.11.2016

1. This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 168 of 2016 registered at P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case, the deceased namely Keshavram and Prem Bai who were father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant committed suicide by consuming poison on account of torture and cruel treatment being caused by their son and daughter-in-law, the present applicant. Subsequently, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant died on 2.2.2016 and 6.2.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no abetment has been caused by her. He further submits that earlier bail was rejected considering the statement of James Gendle nephew of the deceased and presently James Gendle

and Jagesh Lal have been examined before the Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He referred to the statements of James Gendle & Jagesh Lal which are placed on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is lady having four minor children and she is in jail since 23.05.2016, therefore, she may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

5. Perused the statements of witnesses as also the statements of James Gendle and Jagesh Lal Gendele wherein they have not supported the case of prosecution.

6. Considering the statements of James Gendle and Jagesh Lal who have not supported the case of prosecution as also the fact that the applicant is lady having four minor children and is stated to be in jail since 23.05.2016, without any further observation on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on her executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. She will also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

C.c.

as per rules.

Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE R a o