Gopal vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard. Perused the case diary

This is first application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No. 376/2013 registered at Police Station, Chachoda, District Guna, for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 28.8.13 applicant has informed that he was married with Guddi in the year 2009. He was going to village Kanva and his wife Guddibai was objecting, then he came out from the house. Kaveri told him not to go village Kanva, as Guddibai has consumed Illimar Dava. Thereafter, he took Guddibai to hospital Beenaganj and from where he was taking her to Biora, but she died in the way. On the basis of this information, Merg intimation No. 40/13 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. During enquiry, it was found that applicant, who is husband of the deceased, was having suspicion over the character of his wife and he used to beat her. On the date of incident also, the deceased was beaten by the applicant, hence, due to continuous harassment, deceased has consumed some poisonous substance.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He has not harassed his wife. After hearing that the deceased has consumed some poisonous substance, he took her to hospital for treatment. It is further submitted that father, brother and brother-in-law of the deceased are responsible for death of the deceased because they were not returning the jewellery of the deceased. The deceased has left two years old daughter and applicant has to look after her. Applicant is in custody since 14.9.13 and trial will take some time. Hence, prayed for bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor as well as by learned counsel for the complainant. Taking into consideration the material collected during investigation, particularly the case diary statement of Banshilal, who is the uncle of the applicant, as well as the postmortem report of the deceased which reveals that deceased has sustained lacerated wound over forehead which was ante-mortem, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby dismissed.