Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Punam Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56051 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. PUNAM GUPTA W/O SHRI VIRENDRA GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
HARISHANKAR PURAM COLONY JHANSI ROAD,
GWALIO R M.P. PRESENTLY RESIDED AT JAITAL
VIHAR, VILLAGE RAMAUA SIROL ROAD, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SURESH AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION JHANSI ROAD,
DISTRICT GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This is second application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by
the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC registered at Police Station- Jhansi Road Thana, District
Gwalior at Crime No.64/2020. On earlier occasion vide order dated 13.07.2020
passed in M.Cr.C. No.22408/2020, the present applicant was given the benefit
of anticipatory bail in the light of judgment passed by Apex Court in the matter
o f Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014)8 SCC 273 on certain
conditions, which are as under:-
In view of above and considering the principles laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), this Court is inclined to
direct thus:
(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when
the same is necessary and the applicants fail to cooperate in the
investigation.
(ii) That, the applicants should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the applicants cooperate in the investigation then the
occasion of their arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, the applicants shall deposit Rs.10,000/- each in PM CARES
Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code:
SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch :
State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch.
(iv) The applicants will inform the SHO of concerned police station
about their residential address in the said area and it would be the
duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of
concerned police station for information.
2. The reason for filing the present application on behalf of applicant is
stated to be that in similar set of facts the husband of the petitioner, who was
also granted benefit of anticipatory bail vide same order, his application under
Section 437 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Court below and ignoring
this very order he was sent to jail and only after filing application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. husband of present petitioner came out of jail and since challan
has already been filed in the matter, she would be subjected to be similar
treatment by the trial Court and there is every chance of rejecting the application
filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. by learned trial Court. On the aforesaid
terms the present application has been filed and it is prayed that the same
deserves to be allowed.
3. It was further submitted that learned trial Court while rejecting the
second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. had wrongly observed that
since there is already an order in existence of this Court for anticipatory bail,
therefore, it has no right and jurisdiction to passed any fresh order, which is per
se illegal. It was, thus, prayed that present application be allowed and in the
event of arrest of present applicant, she may be extended the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that case of the
present applicant is different from that of her husband as after grant of
anticipatory bail in the year 2020 several other cases were registered against him
of similar nature and the husband of the petitioner was even at the time of
hearing of the application was produced before the Court by way of production
warrant, thus, there was no occasion to trial Court to have allowed the said
application and it was further submitted that since there is an order already in
existence in favour of the petitioner of anticipatory bail, the learned trial Court
has rightly rejected her second bail application and similar fate would be that of
the present application, as there is no change of circumstances which could
entail the preferring of the present application.
5. It was also contended that as challan has already been submitted
before the trial Court and in case warrants are issued against the present
applicant, then she has remedy to apprise the Court about the order already in
existence and get the said warrant cancelled, but no second order of
anticipatory bail can be passed, thus, the present application under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. on behalf of present applicant is not maintainable.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court finds that on earlier
occasion vide order dated 13.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.22408/2020 in the
light of order passed in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (Supra), the benefit of
anticipatory bail has already been extended to the petitioner on certain
conditions as mentioned above. It is not the case of the present applicant that
since the conditions imposed by this Court in the earlier order has not been
complied with, therefore, she apprehends that she may be arrested rather it is a
case of the petitioner that other co-applicant in the earlier application i.e. her
husband has been subjected to arrest even after the said order which is in
existence and there is every apprehension in the mind of the present applicant
that she would also be arrested.
7. This very apprehension has no legs as this Court finds that learned trial
Court after appreciating the fact that there is already an order of anticipatory bail
in existence in favour of the present applicant, has held that the second
application would not be maintainable and could not be entertained. This Court
also finds that as the order dated 13.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.22408/2020
is in existence and as per the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner
that the condition thereof has already been fulfilled, there is no occasion or
reason to entertain this second application, accordingly, the same is hereby
dismissed.
E-copy/certified copy as per rules.
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
