Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheela Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27906 of 2022
Between:-
1. SHEELA BAI W/O SHRI SURENDRA SINGH
RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O GRAM
UDAYGIRI POST UDAYGIRI TEHSIL BARELI
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JEERA BAI W/O SHRI HARI SINGH RAJPUT ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM UDAYGIRI, POST
UDAYGIRI, TEHSIL BARELI, DISTRICT RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHANDRAKUNWAR BAI W/O SHRI BHAGWANT
SINGH RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM
UDAYGIRI, POST UDAYGIRI, TEHSIL BARELI,
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANURAG GOHIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BARELI DISTRICT RAISEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
JAYANT NEEKHRA, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
SAN
This is first application by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
for grant of anticipatory bail.
Date: 2022.07.01 18:48:30 IST
Applicants apprehending their arrest in ST No. 110/2016 (State of MP
Vs. Bhagwat Singh and others) pending on the case file of ASJ Bareli, District-
Raisen arising out of Crime No. 78/2016 of Police Station-Bareli, District-
Raisen for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307
and 325 of IPC have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail as
learned ASJ Bareli District-Raisen has proceeded against them under Section
319 of Cr.P.C. and has issued bailable warrant against them.
After issuance of bailable warrant by the ASJ, Bareli against the
applicants for trying together with co-accused in the aforesaid Session trial,
applicants moved an anticipatory bail application before the learned ASJ, Bareli
in ST No. 110/2016 (State of MP Vs. Bhagwat Singh and others) but the same
was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that all these applicant
are women. Sheela Bai is 56 years old, applicant No. 2 Jeera Bai is more than 60
years old and applicant No. 3 Chandrakunwar Bai is 46 years old. They have
no criminal past. it is submitted that as per the prosecution case, FIR was
lodged against co-accused and applicants by one Sushila Bai. But after
investigation police did not file charge sheet against present applicants as their
involvement in the commission of the offence was not found. Investigation of
offence was done by an officer of Dy.SP rank. The police officials who on the
basis of information received at dial 100 had reached on the spot, in their
statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that applicants were
not present on the spot at the time of incident. It is submitted that applicants
and complainant are from the same family, they have blood relation. Counter
Signature Not Verified
SAN
FIR has also been registered against the complainant party and they are also
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2022.07.01 18:48:30 IST
facing criminal case before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants placing reliance on the judgment of
Manohar Lal Saini and others Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in Criminal
Revision No. 382/2014 vide order dated 02.12.2015 has submitted that if
someone is impleaded as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Court should
either issue summons or bailable warrant only, as the purpose of issuance of
such process is mere the continuous appearance of the accused before the trial
Court in the case pending. It is further submitted that no purpose would
be served by sending the applicants/ladies in the jail as trial is pending. It is
submitted that only allegation against the present applicants is that they all
caused injuries to Shushila Bai but in medical examination, no injuries which
could have been said to be grievous in nature or life threatening has been found
on the person of Shushila Bai. No case under section 307 of IPC is made out
against them. Applicants belongs to the respectable families, they are the
victims of the rivalry between the families of two brothers. Learned counsel also
referred the examination-in-chief of witnesses recorded before the trial Court
and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it is
submitted that applicants are ready to abide by all the conditions whatsoever
imposed by this Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants has prayed
for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Per-contra, Shri Jayant Neekhra learned counsel for the objector and Shri
Ramji Pandey learned G.A. for the respondent/State has opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicants and have submitted that applicants owe
liability under Section 149 of the IPC as they were member of unlawful
Signature Not Verified
SAN
assembly. They have taken active part in the commission of offence. They have
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2022.07.01 18:48:30 IST
not only caused injuries to Shushila Bai but also prevented her from rescue her
husband who was being assaulted by the other co-accused persons. It is further
submitted that complainant party is being still intimidated by the applicants and
co-accused, a report in this regard has been made against them to the police. It
is further submitted that name of applicants did not find place in 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of witnesses because investigation officer and police had been
managed by the applicants and co-accused. Therefore, they have prayed for
dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
O n perusal of the order dated 26.04.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
6153/2016 (Hari Singh Rajput Vs. State of MP), it is revealed that co-accused
Hari Singh Rajput has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court.
I have gone through the evidence of witnesses whose examination-in-
chief has been recorded before the learned ASJ, the statements of 161 of
Cr.P.C of witnesses and other material available on record. It is undisputed that
after investigation, in want of sufficient material no charge sheet was filed
against the present applicants by the police. In investigation, it was found that
they were not present on the spot at the time of commission of offence. On the
basis of examination-in-chief of some of the prosecution witnesses, learned
ASJ has proceeded against them under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for trying them
together with co-accused persons.
As for the provision of Section 319 of Cr.P.C is concerned where in
course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence it appears from the evidence
that any person not being an accused has committed any offence for which
such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed
against such person for the offence which appears to have committed. The
Signature Not Verified
SAN
main purpose is to secure appearance of applicants before the Court of law for
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2022.07.01 18:48:30 IST
trial together. It cannot be over looked that applicant No.1 Sheela Bai is 55
years old, applicant No. 2 Jeera Bai is 60 years old lady and applicant No. 3 is
46 years old lady. They have no criminal past. Trial is pending.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view
that it is a case in which applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.
Consequently, this first application f o r anticipatory bail filed on behalf of
applicants is hereby allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest or their surrender before trial Court
applicants-Sheela Bai, Jeera Bai and Chandrakunwar Bai be released on
bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
Applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated in sub-Section
(2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Applicants themselves shall surrender before trial
Court within 15 days from today and will face trial. However, it is being made
clear that in case of bail jump and in violation of any of conditions, this order
shall become ineffective.
C.C. as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
L.R.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA
Date: 2022.07.01 18:48:30 IST
