Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeenat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2024
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55975 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JEENAT W/O FARAJ AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NERA PULL BOGADA BHURANI MAJID MORARAJI
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY MS. PRIYANKA TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
S TATI O N AISHBAG DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A. N. GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI ANUBHAV
SINGHAL - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent, finally heard.
2. This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of pre-arrest bail relating to Crime
No.101/2023, registered at Police Station Aishbagh, District Bhopal (M.P.) for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 506 and 120-B of
the IPC.
3. His previous application i.e. M.Cr.C.No.19189 of 2023 was
dismissed as withdrawn on 05/06/2023.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after withdrawal of
previous application, this Court was kind enough in granting pre-arrest bail to
co-accused Syed Hina Praveen in M.Cr.C.No.47515 of 2023 (Annexure A/4).
The applicant will co-operate with the investigation and trial (if any). The
applicant will not influence the material/evidence. The applicant belongs to a
reputed family and will not cause any prejudice to the investigation. In addition,
it is submitted that applicant is suffering from certain ailments which can be
seen from medical documents (Annexure A/3). The applicant has recently
delivered a child and in this view of the matter, she may be given benefit of
anticipatory bail.
5. The prayer is opposed by Shri A. N. Gupta, learned Government
Advocate and Shri Anubhav Singhal, learned counsel for objector.
6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7. The prosecution story in Crime No.101/2023 shows that the applicant
is made accused along with other co-accused persons with the aid of Section
120-B of IPC. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Syed
Hina Praveen. The applicant is a young woman who has recently delivered a
child.
8 . The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 laid down the parameters on which
anticipatory bail can be considered. The relevant portion of judgment of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) reads as under :
"112. The following factors and parameters can be
taken into consideration while dealing with the
anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact
as to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number
of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The court
must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is
implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the
Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even
greater care and caution because overimplication in the
cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between
two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to
the free, fair and full investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness that
shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail
and in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of
events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be
restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of
that case. The court must carefully examine the entire
available record and particularly the allegations which
have been directly attributed to the accused and these
allegations are corroborated by other material and
circumstances on record."
9. If present case is examined on the anvil of said principles, it will be
clear that applicant will not be able to flee from justice. No criminal antecedent
of applicant is brought to the notice of the Court. There exist no material to
suggest likelihood of repeating similar or other offence by applicant. Thus, in
the opinion of this Court, if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, no
prejudice would be caused to free and fair investigation/trial. The case is based
on oral as well as documentary evidence. The applicant shall not be able to
tamper the evidence. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), it was made
it clear that arrest should be the last option where arresting the accused is
imperative. In the factual backdrop of this case, in the opinion of this Court, the
applicant deserves an anticipatory bail.
10. Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop, I deem it proper to
grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to conditions that she
shall join the investigation immediately and shall not take any steps to influence
the material/evidence in any manner.
11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, applicant- Jeenat be released on
anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rs. Fifty Thousand only) along with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of arresting officer for her appearance before the Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation as and when directed.
12. Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall also apply on the
applicant during currency of bail.
13. The M.Cr.C is disposed of.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
manju
