logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MPHC 253 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwailor)
Case No : MISC. Criminal Case No. 55479 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SETH
Parties : Banti @ Rambhajan Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Lokendra Singh Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Brajesh Kumar Tyagi, Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 29-12-2025
Head Note :-
Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3/4 -

Comparative Citation:
2025 MPHC-GWL 33906,
Judgment :-

1. Heard on I.A.No.27344/2025, which is an application for urgent hearing during Winter Vacation. For the reasons assigned therein, the same is allowed.

2. This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,1973) seeking grant of anticipatory bail as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.247/2025 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 80, 85, 3 (5) of BNS and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that the deceased is alleged to have died by hanging within seven years of her marriage. The date of marriage of the deceased was 23/04/2024, and the deceased died on 27/09/2025. On the basis of statements made by the family members of the deceased, the applicant and co-accused persons have been implicated in the present case. The applicant is son-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that omnibus allegations for demand of dowry have been levelled against all family members. The applicant is son-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased. He was residing about 150 kilometers away from the place of incidence and he may also not fall within the ambit of "relative". He submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated without any basis. The applicant is a resident of District Morena (M.P.), and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

7. In view of the above submissions, but without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, the anticipatory application is allowed. It is directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

8. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

          i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

          ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

          iii) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

          vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

          v) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and

9. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

10. Certified copy as per rules.

 
  CDJLawJournal