Pratibha Bagora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4995 MP

                                       - : 1 :-


HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
     (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
                 M.Cr.C. No. 29294/2021
Pratibha Bagora W/o Vishvanath Bagora, aged about 32 years, Occupation-
Housewife, R/o Padamawati Nagar Abhinandan, District Mandsaur.
                                                                         ---Applicant.
                                          Versus
State of M.P. through Police Station- City Kotwali, Mandsaur
                                                                         ---Respondent.
       --------------------------------------------------------------------
       For applicant (s)                :       Mr. Vivek Singh
       For Respondent (s)               :       Ms. Bharti Lakkad, GA
       --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ORDER

Date: 03.09.2021:

This is the third application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C.,1973 seeking bail in connection with Crime No.329/2020 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, District Mandsaur for offence punishable under Sections 384, 306/34 of I.P.C.

First bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 22.10.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.36453/2020 and co- accused has been granted bail. Second bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.19207/2021.At the request of the counsel for the applicant, status of the trial was called and as per the report submitted by the trial court, the witnesses are not turning up before court despite receiving summons.

The objector is also appearing through counsel Shri K.K. Joshi, hence no summons was required to serve upon him and he could have appeared to record his statement. The trial has already been delayed for six months due to illness of Shri K.K. Joshi. The role of objector is only to assist the public prosecutor not to delay the trial. As per report he is not appearing before the Court due to illness but that should not have been ground to give an adjournment because the interest of prosecution is being taken care by the Public Prosecutor. The Objector may engage some other counsel. The speedy trial is a right of the accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the first bail

- : 2 :-

application was dismissed, the judgments of the Apex Court covering the field were considered but now recently judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 964, the scope of section 306 of I.P.C. has been explained, hence, no offence under section 306 of I.P.C. is made out against this applicant. If husband was having doubt about the illicit relationship of her wife with the co- accused, he could have sought the divorce instead of committing suicide. He further submits that when her husband committed suicide, the applicant was not residing with him as she was in her maternal house, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of instigation. The applicant is not having any criminal past. She is jail more than one year. There is no progress in the trial as the trial is being delayed by the objector. Hence, applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail.

Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application and prays its rejection.

Considering that facts and circumstances and deliberate delay in trial at the instance of objector without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during the trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during the trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Before releasing the applicant from custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule out the possibility of COVID -19 infections and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020.

Certified copy as per rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2021.09.06 17:20:11 +05'30'