Preeti Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15893 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Preeti Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                 1
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                       MCRC No. 21689 of 2024
                (PREETI BAGHEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 28-05-2024
      Shri Harshit Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

      Shri Rajeev Upadhyay - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

1. This is the first application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein she is apprehending her arrest in Crime Number (Complaint Case No.143/2024 RCT) registered by Police Station Ater, District Bhind for offence under Sections 185, 195, 211 of IPC.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that she is a widow lady aged 33 years apprehending her arrest on the basis of registration of offence referred above. As per allegations, she made a written complaint against one person for offence under Section 376 of IPC. She gave her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also. At the time of court statement, she did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. Therefore, trial Court while recording acquittal in favour of then accused vide judgment dated 08.02.2024 in S.T. No. 96/2019 by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, ordered for prosecution of

prosecutrix (present applicant). Grounds for prosecution was to give false evidence for ensuring the acquittal of accused.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that offence under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC are bailable in nature. Only non-bailable offence is Section 195 of IPC but same is not attracted. According to counsel for the applicant, prosecutrix did not give evidence

before the trial Court to ensure the conviction of accused person. In fact, she caused acquittal of accused rather than conviction. Therefore, it is not a case where Section 195 of IPC is attracted.

4. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer, however, sought two weeks' time to prepare the case on this legal issue.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. The applicant appears to have raised legal question in which as submitted, Section 195 IPC is not attracted in the present set of facts. Since counsel for the respondent sought time, therefore, four weeks' time is granted so that counsel for respondent to prepare the case more

extensively.

7. Meanwhile, applicant is granted temporary bail, if she furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/trial Court concerned, then she would be released on bail till further orders subject to the conditions as imposed by the trial Court.

8. Matter is placed on 08.07.2024 for consideration of this application.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van VANDANA VERMA 2024.05.28 19:09:46 +05'30'