Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saroj Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 1145/2022
(SAROJ DEVI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 11/01/2022
Shri H.K.Shukla, Counsel for applicant.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for State.
Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 438 of CrPC has been filed
for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.151/2021 registered at Police Station - Ater, District Bhind, for
offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 336, 332, 34 of IPC and
Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that on
01/10/2021, an information was received that the co-accused-Shadilal
is having an illegal gun with him and accordingly, police party went to
the spot alongwith the police force and saw that the co-accused-
Shadilal was having 12 bore double barrel halfbut gun. When, he was
surrounded by the police party, then he fired three gunshots by aiming
at the police force. However, the police party did not suffer any injury
on account of gunshots fired by the co-accused-Shadilal. Thereafter,
the co-accused-Shadilal instigated his daughter to take out another
gun and accordingly, the daughter of the applicant went to the roof of
her house and fired one gunshot but it did not hit anybody. Thereafter,
the applicant again instigated her daughter to fire another gunshot,
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 1145/2022
(SAROJ DEVI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
which landed on the earth. Thereafter, four gunshots were fired by the
police in retaliation. It is alleged that the applicant pelted stones in
order to take away co-accused-Shadilal as a result police Constable
Abhishek sustained injury on his right palm. It is submitted that
although, the police has shown the recovery of one 12 bore gun and 5
live cartridges and one fired cartridge but the applicant has been
falsely implicated. In fact applicant has filed a habeas corpus writ
petition, which has been registered as W.P.No.10479/2020 and the said
habeas corpus writ petition is pending. In the said writ petition, it was
alleged that the respondent No.4 therein, who is a police officer, is still
in possession of two gold rings and mobile of the daughter of the
applicant and the respondent No.4 therein has given the same to his
brother-in-law (Sala). Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police,
Bhind was directed to file the call details of the mobile number
carrying IMEI number belonging to the daughter of the applicant. The
daughter of the applicant was also produced before the Court in
W.P.No.10479/2020 and her statement was recorded and the Court by
order passed on the very same day sought explanation/ reply
alongwith the personal affidavit of the respondent No.4/ Atul
Bhadauriya, SHO, Police Station Ater, District Bhind. It is submitted
that on account of pendency of W.P.No.10479/2020 as well as in the
light of the allegations made by the applicant as well as her daughter
against Atul Bhadauriya, SHO, Police Station Ater, District Bhind, the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 1145/2022
(SAROJ DEVI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
applicant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that co-accused-
Shadilal has been granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by order
dated 22.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.56651/2021. The applicant is
a lady and even otherwise, there are no allegations of firing any
gunshot. She is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.
The Trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no
possibility of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the
Counsel for the State.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without
commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed
subject to condition that if the applicant appears before the
Investigating Officer (Arresting Officer) on or before 18.01.2022, she
shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating
Officer).
The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by
the Investigating Officer as and when required. She shall further abide
by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438
of Cr. P. C.
It is made clear that in case if the applicant fails to appear
before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 1145/2022
(SAROJ DEVI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
18.01.2022, then this order shall lose its effect and the Investigating
Officer shall be at liberty to take her in custody.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
bail be sent to the complainant.
CC as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2022.01.11
18:25:25
+05'30'
