Smt. Kapoori Devi Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16599 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Kapoori Devi Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 June, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                              1                             MCRC-23106-2024
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                    MCRC No. 23106 of 2024
                                        (SMT. KAPOORI DEVI JADON Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 11-06-2024
                                Shri Ravi Shankar Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.

                                Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Advocate for the respondent.

This is the first anticipatory application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.242/2021, registered at Police Station- MPMKVV Co., District- Datia, for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case on 5.6.2020 during inspection by the employees of MPMKVV Co. the applicant was found committing theft of electricity through LT light wire directly and used 3 AC, 10 LED, 6 fans, 2 fridge, 2 TV, 1 pump. The applicant has no electricity connection. Allegations primarily against the applicant was offence under Section 135 of the IPC which is triable by Magistrate. Maximum sentence awarded in the said case can be seven years. Therefore, case is covered by the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and in the case of

Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. Confinement may bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and to make herself available as and when required. She would not be source of harassment and embarrassment in any manner to the complainant party in any manner. Under these grounds, counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the

2 MCRC-23106-2024 prayer, however; fairly submitted that offence is primarily under Section 135 of the IPC and in case of enhancement of provisions, appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondent. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this bail application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. Considering the submissions and nature of allegations and law of Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 922, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority / trial Court.

This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i. The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii. The applicant shall not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;

3 MCRC-23106-2024 v. The applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

6. Application stands allowed and disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance and information.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) V. JUDGE (alok)