Deepak Shakya vs State Of M.P.

This is the fourth bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

Applicant has been arrested on 17/1/2019 by Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.19/2019 registered in relation to the

offences punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this is fourth bail application of the present applicant. Earlier bail applications i.e. M.Cr.C.

No.20573/2019 dated 17.05.2019 and M.Cr.C. No.31970/2019 dated 11.11.2019 and M.Cr.C. No.3600/2020 dated 12/2/2020 were rejected on merits.

The present applicant is the husband of the deceased. The marriage was performed on 10/11/2016. The applicant is in custody since 17/1/2019. The

trial is still pending. Due to Covid-19 Pandemic, there is no possibility of examining the prosecution witnesses in the trial Court. No custodial

interrogation is required in this case. It is further submitted that in the post mortem, no ante mortem injury was found on the body of the deceased. The

death of the deceased was due to hanging. As the death was prior to seven years of marriage of the deceased, the provision of Section 304-B of IPC

is not attracted. It is further submitted that co-accused father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased have already been granted anticipatory bail. It

is further submitted that applicant is a young boy of 22 years of age and if he is kept in jail for a long time, his carrier will be spoiled. In support of his

contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hussain & Anr. vs. Union of India &

Ors. reported in [(2017) 5 SCC 702]. Hence, prayed for grant of bail. He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance,

circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-

19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is no new ground for considering

the fourth bail application of the applicant. The earlier applications of the applicant were decided on merits. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail

application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through Video Conferencing and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case-

diary.

Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant and looking to the gravity of the offence, it is not appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the

applicant. Therefore, the bail application is rejected.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.