Madhya Pradesh High CourtDevendra Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2015Misc. Criminal Case. No.1891/2015

   03.03
        .2015
             
                         Shri Rajesh K. Awasthy, Advocate for the applicant.
                         Shri   V.K.   Pandey,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the   respondent­State.In   compliance   of   earlier   order   dated   26.02.2015 
                Investigating   Officer   of   Crime   No.83/2014,   registered   at 
                Police   Station   Belkheda,   Jabalpur   is   personally   present 
                along with original case diary.Heard on the question of admission.Admit.Case diary is available.With   the   consent   of   the   parties   the   case   is   heard 
                finally.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant 
                underSection 439of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime 
                No.83/2014, registered at Police Station Belkheda, Jabalpur, 
                for   the   offences   punishable   underSections   304­B,   498­A 
                and 34 ofIPCandSection 3and4of Dowry Prohibition Act.Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submits   that   the 
                applicant   has   falsely   been   implicated   in   the   case.   It   is 
                contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 
                many pages of the charge­sheet including dying declaration 
                of  deceased  Rukmani  it is  marked  that  original have been 
                lost, therefore, entire prosecution case appears to be false, 
                malicious and fabricated. The co­accused Suresh, Smt. Usha 
                Agrawal   and   Smt.   Shobha   Agrawal   have   already   been 
            enlarged on anticipatory bai by this Court. The case of the 
           applicant is similar to the case of enlarged co­accused. The 
           applicant   is   a   young   person   and   is   in   custody   since 
           28.07.2014, having no past criminal antecedents. In view of 
           the  aforesaid, prayer is made  to enlarge the    applicant on 
           bail.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State 
           has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail of 
           the applicant on the ground that the applicant is a husband 
           of   the   deceased   Rukmani   Bai   and   involved   in   a   serious 
           offence   of   cruelty,   harassment   and   dowry   demand,   hence, 
           the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.Keeping   in   view   the   submissions   made   by   learned 
           counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of 
           the case the evidence collected by the prosecution there is 
           indication  prima   facie  that   the   applicant   is   involved   in   a 
           heinous   crime.   Looking   to   the   nature   and   gravity   of   the 
           accusation,   this   is   not   a   fit   case   for   grant   bail   to   the 
           applicant. Consequently, his application underSection 439of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.(Subhash Kakade) 
                                                                       Judge              
    taj.