Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3250/2024 of SHANTI SAKET Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3250 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHANTI SAKET W/O SAMAYLAL SAKET, AGED ABOUT39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O MADARIYAP.S. JAMODI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES TAT I O N JAMODI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure relating to F.I.R. No.807/2023 dated 04.10.2023registered at Police Station Jamodi, District Sidhi (M.P.) for commission ofoffence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. Applicant apprehending herarrest in the aforesaid offence has knocked the portal of this Court for grant ofanticipatory bail.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 04.10.2023, applicant was found inpossession of 55 bulk liters of illicit country made liquor. F.I.R. was registered.After seizure, police did not arrest her. After completion of investigation, police before filing charge-sheet gave notice with date of filing of charge-sheet beforethe trial Court. But, despite receipt of notice, she did not turn up before theCourt on due date.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has notcommitted any offence. She is innocent. She has been falsely implicated. Afterinvestigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, it is prayed that theapplicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed theprayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and has submitted that afterfiling of charge-sheet, accused failed to appear before the trial Court despiteservice of notice of date of filing of charge-sheet. It is further submitted thatapplicant is a habitual offender as 10 criminal cases are already registeredagainst her and out of those cases, 9 are of the same nature.
6. Considering the submissions put-forth by learned counsel for theparties, long criminal background of the applicant and the fact that applicant hasfailed to appear before the Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet and now,she is absconding, but without commenting anything on the merit of the case, Iam of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to theapplicant.
7. Consequently, this first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicant -Shanti Saket stands dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE