Smt. Vidyavati 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. 486/2012 registered at Police Station, Kailaras, District Morena, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323 and 302 of IPC.

As per prosecution case, deceased Bebi was the wife of co-accused Bali. On the date of incident, the deceased Bebi had gone to the house of Satish. As soon as Bali came to his house, he went to the house of Satish and by catching hold of the deceased took her in his house and started beating deceased Bebi by means of kicks and fists. Purushottam, Vidya and Seema also gave beating to her. When Bebi was going to lodge the report and reached near MDS Colony, Bali and Purushottam armed with Lathi and Vidya and Seem with stones came there and started beating her. Bali gave a blow of Lathi on the head of Bebi, as a result of which Bebi fell down. Purushottam also gave a blow of Lathi and Vidya and Seema pelted stones on deceased Bebi. During treatment, Bebi died.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Co-accused Seema has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.12.2012 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 9662/2012. Applicant is in custody since 9.7.2013 and trial will take some time. On these grounds, prayed for bail.

The application is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

From the medical report of deceased Bebi, it appears that she has received as many as four lacerated wounds and contusion caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries have been reported to be dangerous to life. As per the postmortem report, death has been caused due to head injury. The co-accused Seema has been released on bail vide order dated 27.12.2012 taking into consideration that she is having two minor children who are also with her in jail. Such is not the case of the present applicant. Further the applicant has been arrested only on 9.7.2013. She remained absconding. Therefore, the case of the applicant is not identical to that of co-accused Seema. Taking into consideration the active participation of the applicant in the commission of a heinous crime, she is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, this application is hereby dismissed.