Kaushalya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2732 MP

                                          1                                       WP-18215-2020
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     WP-18215-2020
              (KAUSHALYA BAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

5
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-06-2021
         Heard through Video Conferencing.
         Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment

passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Agrawal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7281-7282/2017, the petitioner is entitled for protection of bail for the entire trial period. He relies on para 12 of the said judgment which is reproduced as under:

(12) The observations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & ors (and other similar judgments) that no restrictive conditions at all can be imposed, while granting anticipatory bail are hereby overruled. Likewise, the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 58 and subsequent decisions (including K.L. Verma v. State & Anr59; Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr 60; Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal61; Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr62; HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan 63; Satpal Singh v.

(2011) 6 SCC 189 (2005) 8 SCC 21 2011 (1) SCC 694 (1996 (1) SCC 667) 1998 (9) SCC 348 2005 (1) SCC 608 2005 (4) SCC 303 2004 (7) SCC 558 2010 (1) SCC 679 the State of Punjab64 and Naresh Kumar Yadav v Ravindra Kumar65) which lay down such restrictive conditions, or terms limiting the grant of anticipatory bail, to a period of time are hereby overruled.

This Court by order dated 31.03.2021 asked the learned counsel for the parties to argue on the maintainability of the writ petition and to address that whether subsequent order which has been passed by the Apex Court will be applicable in the case of the petitioner whose case has already been concluded by order of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.16909/2017 dated 31.12.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to argue the said point, however, learned counsel for the State prays for time to seek 2 WP-18215-2020 instructions in the matter and to argue.

In view of aforesaid, till the issue as raised by this Court by order dated 31.03.2021 is decided after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.04.2014 in M.Cr.C.No.3174/2014 shall remain in force till the next date of hearing.

List this matter on 22.07.2021.

C.C as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

anu

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Date: 2021.06.26 17:08:37 IST