Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manisha Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15876 of 2022
Between:-
MANISHA SHARMA W/O LATE SHRI
SHARMENDRA SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE 567, GULA BAG COLONY
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI R.S. CHHABRA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI AMAN
ARORA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
BHANWARKUWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE, SHRI
ANIL OJHA AND SHRI H. SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE
OBJECTORS)
Th is application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first application of the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.288/2022 registered at
Police Station - Bhanwarkuwan, Indore for the offences under Section 420, 467,
468, 471 of IPC.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Chief Executive
Officer of Devi Ahilya Hospital and Research Center, Indore. In the year 2003,
Devi Ahilya College of Paramedical Science was granted recognition for imparting
14 paramedical courses from the departments of M.P. Paramedical Council,
Department of Medical Education. For the academic session 2013-14 and 2014-15,
the applicant was the then principal of the said college. In the year 2013-14, 40
students took admission in DMLT course (Diploma in Medical Lab Technician) - a
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
two year Diploma Course. Out of the aforesaid 38 students, in May 2016, result of
Date: 2022.04.12
17:39:55 IST
21 students were declared by the University whereas results of 17 students were
withheld by the University. The action of the University was challenged in W.P.
No.6057/2016 filed on behalf of the College through its Director Dr. Ajay Hardia,
however, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
04.04.2017.
Another writ petition W.P. No.8575/2016 was filed on behalf of the
complainant and the other sudents (i.e. Manju Tanwar & others v. DAVV &
others) wherein the University has denied accepting the examination forms of the
12 students, who have registered for DMLT/Dor course and have also restricted
them to appear in the said examination. However, by interim order dated
26.12.2016, this Court directed the University to allow the aforesaid students to
appear in the examination with a condition that the results of the students shall not
be declared without the permission of the High Court. However, the said petition
was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2017. An inquiry was conducted by the
University and vide letter dated 05.08.2016 directed the SHO, P.S. Sanyogitaganj
to register an FIR against the Directors and the concerned members of the college.
Pursuant to the aforesaid, an FIR bearing Crime No.605/2016 for the offences
under Section 420 of IPC was lodged against the Director of the said College i.e.
Dr. Ajay Hardia and later the name of the present applicant was also included as
co-accused in the said FIR for the offences under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC
which were also added during the investigation of the matter. In the said crime
number, the applicant was granted bail by order dated 04.01.2017. After a period
of almost 6 years, another FIR bearing Crime No.288/2022 with similar allegations
has been lodged in the Police Station Bhanwarkuwa by student Manju Tanwar,
Director of the college Dr. Ajay Hardia and the members of the college for the
offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC on the same set of allegations as
raised in FIR No.605/2022.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the subsequent FIR has been
registered on the same set of allegations as were mentioned in the first FIR which is
in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
submissions, he places reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2022.04.12
17:39:55 IST
the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 181 and also a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Arif Masood vs. State of M.P. I.L.R. [2020] M.P. 2885.
Counsel for the State and the Objectors opposed the prayer for grant of the
bail on the ground that the allegations are not the same in the subsequent FIR. The
complainants are different and the separate lists of students is there. It is also
submitted that there is no bar for registration of the second FIR. In support of his
submissions, Counsel for the State places reliance on the judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab and
others (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 441 and also the judgment in the case of
Kari Choudhary vs. Mst. Sita Devi and others (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The core question before this Court for consideration is that whether
custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary in the present case or
not. The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. in Crime No.605 of 2016 by order dated 04.01.2017 in M.Cr.C.
No.12984/2016 for commission of offences under Section 420, 467, 468 & 471 of
the IPC. It is not the case of the counsel for the State or the Objectors that there is
no cooperation by the applicant in the present case.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate
with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty granted to the applicant. She
further undertakes not to tamper any evidence. The applicant is a lady and she has
already been granted anticipatory bail in the previous Crime No.605/2016, which
was on the same set of charges. So far the judgments relied by counsel for the
applicant and the State and the Objectors are concerned, there is no dispute to the
law laid down by the Apex Court that there can be further investigation in the
matter at the instance of the prosecution if the new facts have borne out.
However, since the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in the
previous crime numbers in the previous case and there is no allegation of any
misuse of the aforesaid liberty, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for
grant of anticipatory bail in the event of of the arrest on the following conditions:-
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2022.04.12
17:39:55 IST
1) The applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in
the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for her regular appearance before the
Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.
2) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not influence
any witness or shall not tamper the evidence.
3) The applicant shall make herself available to the concerned police station
on every 15th of the month.
4) The applicant shall surrender her passport before the police authorities
and shall not leave the country without permission of this Court.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOUMYA RANJAN
DALAI
Date: 2022.04.12
17:39:55 IST
