Bandana Goswami vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

This is the second application filed by the applicant u/S. 483 of BNSS/ 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail relating to Crime No. 67/2025 registered at Police Station - Sirshod, District - Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Section 103(1), 80, 85, 3(5) of BNS and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Prosecution story, in short, is that complaint was lodged by mother of the deceased namely Preeti to the effect that for demand of dowry by the husband of the deceased along with other family members including present applicant, they assaulted her badly causing her death. It is further stated that earlier also demand of dowry was made by the husband as well as other accused persons. The date of marriage of the deceased was 15/04/2020, whereas, she died on 07/04/2025 under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage and, therefore, offence in question has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He is in custody since 04.07.2025. He further submits that charge sheet has since been filed and further custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. He further submits that applicant is sister-in-law of the deceased and he is totally unrelated to the allegation of demand of dowry and he may not fall within the ambit of relative of husband of deceased. He further submits that he is residing separately from the deceased and her husband and there was no direct or indirect involvement of the applicant in day to day affairs of the deceased and her husband. The allegation of beating the deceased with Lathi / Sariya is not on her. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, co-accused Naresh (husband of the present applicant) has also been bailed out by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 23679 of 2025, therefore, she seeks parity. It is further submitted that early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty. Applicant is permanent resident of District - Shivpuri (M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on bail. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are multiple injuries found on the person of the deceased which has resulted in her death. There are ample material to connect the present applicant in regard to committing murder of the deceased and prayed for its rejection.

Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application on the grounds that subsequent to the grant of bail to the co-accused, Naresh Goswami (husband of the present applicant), the applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 34239 of 2025. Furthermore, the arguments now being raised were already considered by this Court at the time of the rejection of the first bail application. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the present applicant's bail application. It is noted that, as per her memorandum of disclosure, the deceased's blood-stained Saree and the deceased's husband's vest (or baniyan) were seized. This strongly implies that the applicant was aware of all the facts surrounding the deceased's murder. In such circumstances, bail should not be granted at this stage.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

After going through the case diary material and perusing the record, and considering the role attributable to the applicant along with the recovery of the deceased's blood-stained Saree and her husband's vest, this Court finds no ground for parity with the co-accused. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the Applicant.

Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.