Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kanta Yadav vs Smt. Deeptee Verma @ Deepti Vaid on 4 August, 2021
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 MCRC-17566-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-17566-2021
(SMT. KANTA YADAV Vs SMT. DEEPTEE VERMA @ DEEPTI VAID AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri K.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Deepak Panjwani, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent
No.2/State.
Heard on I.A. No.10881/2021, which is an application for taking the
documents on record filed by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection.
Therefore, on due consideration, the aforesaid IA is allowed and the
documents are taken on record.
With consent, heard finally.
This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1 by
this Court vide order dated 04/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.24494/2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the mother
of deceased-Ankit Yadav, who committed suicide on 29/12/2018 by hanging
himself in his room at Bhopal, leaving suicide note mentioning clearly the
name and identification of persons responsible for his death. On the basis of
which, Crime No.188/2019 under Section 306 of IPC has been registered
against respondent No.1 at Police Station, Ashoka Garden, Distt. Bhopal
(MP). Respondent No.1 moved an application for anticipatory bail which
was allowed by this Court vide order dated 04/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.24494/2020. Respondent No.1 obtained the aforesaid order by
concealing and suppressing the material facts and submitting false and
fabricated documents specially report dated 28/12/2018 (Annexure-A/1).
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Station
Signature Not
SAN
Verified House Officer, Police Station, Gwarighat, Jabalpur vide letter dated
Digitally signed by
TULSA SINGH
Date: 2021.08.05
11:08:38 IST
2 MCRC-17566-2021
03/02/2021 (Annexure-A/3) specifically informed that in Police Station
Gwarighat, Jabalpur, no FIR or NCR has been registered on the basis of said
report dated 28/12/2018. Deceased-Ankit Yadav committed suicide on
29/12/2018 leaving suicidal note in which specific allegations have been made
against respondent No.1 who, in her defence, prepared the aforesaid forged
report dated 28/12/2018 and on misguiding the Court obtained order of
anticipatory bail in her favour. Respondent No.1 has dealt with other persons
like deceased-Ankit Yadav to extract money and property. Her husband has
also suffered and has vividly about her acts described in his affidavit
(Annexure-A/4). Her custodial interrogation is required to find out the truth.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of
Gujarat, 2008 Cri.L.J.3008. In these premises, it is prayed that
anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 04/08/2020 in favour of respondent
No.1 may be cancelled.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the application and
submitted that Station House Officer, Police Station, Gwarighat, Jabalpur in
his letter dated 03/02/2021 (Annexure-A/3) no where stated that report dated
28/12/2018 was not received in Police Station, Gwarighat, however, letter
speaks only that no FIR or NCR has been registered on the basis of aforesaid
report. The matter is still under investigation and, at this stage, it cannot be
said that report dated 28/12/2018 (Annexure-A/1) is forged and fabricated.
Respondent No.1 has not misused the anticipatory bail granted in her favour.
Other facts had already been considered by this Court at the time of granting
anticipatory bail in favour of respondent No.1. It is settled principle of law
that for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and
supervening circumstances are relevant. The averments made in the
application are after thought and no overwhelming circumstances are there
against respondent No.1 on the basis of which anticipatory bail granted in her
Signature Not
favour be cancelled. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
TULSA SINGH
Date: 2021.08.05
11:08:38 IST
3 MCRC-17566-2021
Court in the matter of Abdul Basit alias Raju and others Vs. Mohd.
Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another, (2014) 10 SCC 754 . Hence, it is
prayed that the application filed by the applicant in this regard may be
rejected.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2/State has submitted that there is
nothing in the case diary on the basis of which it can be said that respondent
No.1 has misused the anticipatory bail granted in her favour.
On perusal of the record, it is found that Station House Officer, Police
Station, Gwarighat, in his letter dated 03/20/2021 (Annexure-A/3) has no
where mentioned that letter dated 28/12/2018 (Annexure-A/1), alleged to be
forged, was not received in his Police Station. The matter is still under
investigation, therefore, first of all, at this stage, prima facie, it cannot be said
that letter dated 28/12/2018 (Annexure-A/1) is forged and fabricated.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit alias Raju and
others (supra), has held that-
"Generally the ground for cancellation of bail, broadly, are,
(i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal
activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempt
to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or
indulges in similar activity which would hamper smooth
investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another
country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground or becoming unavailable to the investigation agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc."
There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that
respondent No.1 has misused the anticipatory bail granted in her favour. The
applicant has also not submitted any material in this regard and allegations
made by the applicant are also not of such nature on the basis of which bail
granted in favour of respondent No.1 can be cancelled.
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
TULSA SINGH
Date: 2021.08.05
11:08:38 IST
4 MCRC-17566-2021
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the view that it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail.
Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 439(2)
of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail is hereby rejected.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
ts
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
TULSA SINGH
Date: 2021.08.05
11:08:38 IST
