Supreme Court of India
JEETENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. on 18 March 2020
954
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
AJEETENDRA
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2020)
BMARCH 18, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Bail:
Complaint against accused – Alleging that documents ofCresidential property, furnished by him as personal bond for hisrelease on bail in previous criminal case relating to matrimonialdispute, was forged – Closure report by police – JudicialMagistrate ordered further investigation and accused was arrested– Bail denied twice – After re-investigation second report of policethat no offence committed – Third bail application also denied byDimpugned order – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: When theclosure report was filed twice, High Court ought not to havedeclined bail, only because trial court was yet to accept the saidreport.
Allowing the appeal, the CourtE
HELD: The High Court ought to have kept in view that‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’. There is no gain saying thatbail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manneras it concerns the liberty of a person. In peculiar circumstancesof the present case, where closure report was filed twice, theFHigh Court ought not to have declined bail only because the trialcourt was yet to accept the said report. Further, the examinationof witnesses would depend upon the fate of 2[nd] closure report.Considering the nature of allegations attributed to the appellantand the period he has already spent in custody, he deserves toGbe released on bail forthwith. [Para 7] [956-C-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 408 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2019 of the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in MCRC-34732 of 2019
H
Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, AkhilAbraham Roy, Vijay Valsan (For M/s K J John And Co) Ravi PrakashMehrotra, Ankit Agarwal, Harsh Parashar, Amartya Singh, RajeshSrivastava, Vishal Borade, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. Rejection of third bail application by the High Court of MadhyaPradesh, Indore Bench has prompted the appellant to approach thisCourt. He has been in custody since 5[th] January, 2019 in connectionwith Crime No. 210/2012 registered at Police Station Chhatripura,Indore for offences punishable under Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).
3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
4. Wife of the appellant lodged a case under Sections 498-A, 323and 506 of IPC against him, registered as Crime No. 96/2008, whereinthe appellant was arrested. Later, he was released on bail uponfurnishing bail bonds of Rs.7,000/- along with documents of theirresidential property as a personal bond by his mother. Subsequently, thematrimonial dispute was amicably settled and as a result, the appellantwas acquitted on 23[rd] April, 2010.
5. On 20[th] May, 2012 , Dileep Borade (appellant’s cousin) andhis son Vishal Borade lodged a complaint with Police alleging thatdocuments of the residential property furnished as personal bond forappellant’s release on bail in the matrimonial case were forged. Thisled to registration of Crime No. 210/2012 for which the appellant isincarcerated for more than a year.
6. From perusal of the record, we note that a closure report wasfiled by the Police on 24th May, 2013 in Crime No. 210/2012 but thelearned Judicial Magistrate after five years ordered further investigationon 20[th] June, 2018. Consequently, appellant was arrested on 5[th] January,2019 and denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Courtalso vide order dated 22[nd] January, 2019 declined to release him on bail.Appellant filed a second bail application before the High Court, whichwas dismissed as withdrawn on 10[th] April, 2019 with liberty to applyagain after examination of certain material witnesses. Meanwhile, thepolice re-investigated the case and submitted a second report on 2[nd]
A
B
C
DE
F
GH
ASeptember, 2019 stating that no offence has been committed by theappellant and he deserves to be discharged. After filing of this closurereport, appellant approached the High Court for a third time. But hewas denied bail yet again vide the impugned order on grounds that thesecond closure report has not been accepted by the Trial Court andthat appellant has failed to point out whether material witnesses haveBbeen examined or not. The appellant has thus been left with no otheroption but to approach this Court. While issuing notice, this Court on14[th] November, 2019 directed that the appellant be released on interimbail.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as theCcounsel representing the complainant, we are satisfied that the appellantdeserves to be enlarged on bail. The High Court ought to have kept inview that ‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’. There is no gainsayingthat bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner asit concerns the liberty of a person. In peculiar circumstances of this Dcase where closure report was filed twice, the High Court ought notto have declined bail only because the trial court was yet to accept thesaid report. Further, the examination of witnesses would depend uponthe fate of 2[nd] closure report. Considering the nature of allegationsattributed to the appellant and the period he has already spent in custody,we are satisfied that he deserves to be released on bail forthwith.E
8. The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned order of the HighCourt dated 16[th] September, 2019 is set aside. The interim bail orderdated 14[th] November, 2019 is made absolute. The appellant shall standreleased on regular bail subject to the bail bonds already furnished byhim to the satisfaction of the trial court.
F
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
G
H