High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 MP CK 0088

Chhedilal Choudhary And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1495 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 404 words

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

Heard on this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of both applicants Chhedilal Choudhary and Rupendra Choudhary.

The applicants are in judicial custody since 27.07.2020 in connection with Crime No.177/2020 registered at Police Station Kothi, District-Satna for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 34 of the

IPC.

First bail application filed by Chhedilal Choudhary and Rupendra Choudhary was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.10.2020 passed in

M.Cr.C.No.29556/2020.

The allegation against both the applicants, in short, is that applicants are father-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Kajal who got married with

Bhupendra Singh. After her marriage, the applicants along with her husband started demanding dowry and committed marpeet with her on account of

non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Deceased Kajal committed suicide within seven years of her marriage.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that both the applicants are residing separately. None of the witnesses stated that the applicants

demanded dowry and harassed the deceased. There is no material evidence available against the applicants. After investigation, charge-sheet has

been filed and during trial, summons to the material witnesses were sent but none of the witnesses turned to examine himself before the trial Court. In

such circumstances, the applicants are unnecessarily kept in judicial custody, therefore, it has been prayed that applicants be released on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application and submits that parents of the deceased categorically

stated that both the applicants demanded the dowry and harassed her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and deceased committed suicide by

setting herself ablaze, therefore, she prays for dismissal of this application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed that the deceased committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. Prima-facie, it is reflected

that deceased committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and applicants are near relatives of her husband. There is prima-facie oral

evidence available against the applicants that they demanded the dowry and deceased was harassed by her in-laws for non-fulfillment of demand of

dowry. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to release both the applicants on bail.

Consequently, this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of both the applicants is hereby

dismissed.