Savitri Thakur & ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1586 of 2019
1. Savitri Thakur W/o Lt. Shri Lok Pratap Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Police Line, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Dhir Singh S/o Shri Mahesh Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Mhkam, P.O. Sonakhan, P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar Chhattisgarh
3. Smt. Hem Bai W/o Shri Dhir Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Mhkam, P.O. Sonakhan, P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Balodabazar Chhattisgarh ---- Applicants
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent __________________________________________________________ For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Shriya Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 19/12/2019
1. The applicants have filed this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime no. 401/2019, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the instant bail application with regard to applicant No. 1.
3. In view of the above submission, the instant bail application is dismissed as not pressed with regard to applicant No. 1.
4. As per prosecution story, applicant nos. 2 & 3 are the father and mother of applicant no. 1. Marriage between applicant no. 1 and deceased Lok Pratap was solemnized on 15.05.2013. On 17.09.2018, deceased Lok Pratap committed suicide by hanging himself. Allegedly all the applicants instigated the deceased for committing suicide. On the basis of said background, offence has been registered.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant nos. 2 & 3 submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. In suicidal note, no specific allegations have been made by the deceased against applicant nos. 2 & 3. They were the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Prima Facie no case can be made out against them. Hence, it is prayed that applicant nos. 2 & 3 may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, arguments advanced by both the counsel appearing for the parties and further considering the fact that in suicidal note, no specific allegations have been made by the deceased against applicant nos. 2 & 3. They were only the father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the deceased. Without further commenting on other merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to applicant nos. 2 & 3.
9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with regard to applicant nos. 2 & 3.
10. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant nos. 2 & 3 shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them and they shall abide by all the following
terms and conditions:- I.
That the accused/applicants shall made themselves available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required;
II.
The accused/applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 any police officer;
III.
The accused/applicants shall not act, in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and IV.
The applicants shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham