MCRC/55975/2023 of JEENAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024

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 CrimeNo.101/2023, registered at Police Station Aishbagh, District Bhopal (M.P.) forthe offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 506 and 120-B ofthe IPC.

3. His previous application i.e. M.Cr.C.No.19189 of 2023 wasdismissed as withdrawn on 05/06/2023.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after withdrawal ofprevious application, this Court was kind enough in granting pre-arrest bail toco-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). Theapplicant will not influence the material/evidence. The applicant belongs to areputed family and will not cause any prejudice to the investigation. In addition,it is submitted that applicant is suffering from certain ailments which can beseen from medical documents (Annexure A/3). The applicant has recentlydelivered a child and in this view of the matter, she may be given benefit ofanticipatory bail.

5. The prayer is opposed by Shri A. N. Gupta, learned GovernmentAdvocate 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 Section120-B of IPC. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused SyedHina Praveen. The applicant is a young woman who has recently delivered achild.

8 . The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 laid down the parameters on whichanticipatory bail can be considered. The relevant portion of judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) reads as under :

“112. The following factors and parameters can betaken into consideration while dealing with theanticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and theexact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the factas to whether the accused has previously undergoneimprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of anycognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeatsimilar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with theobject of injuring or humiliating the applicant byarresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly incases of large magnitude affecting a very large numberof people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire availablematerial against the accused very carefully. The courtmust also clearly comprehend the exact role of theaccused in the case. The cases in which the accused isimplicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of thePenal Code, 1860 the court should consider with evengreater care and caution because overimplication in thecases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant ofanticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck betweentwo factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused tothe free, fair and full investigation and there should beprevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustifieddetention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension oftampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to thecomplainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always beconsidered and it is only the element of genuineness thatshall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bailand in the event of there being some doubt as to thegenuineness 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 berestricted to those exceptional cases where arresting theaccused is imperative in the facts and circumstances ofthat case. The court must carefully examine the entireavailable record and particularly the allegations whichhave been directly attributed to the accused and theseallegations are corroborated by other material andcircumstances 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 antecedentof applicant is brought to the notice of the Court. There exist no material tosuggest likelihood of repeating similar or other offence by applicant. Thus, inthe opinion of this Court, if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant, noprejudice would be caused to free and fair investigation/trial. The case is basedon oral as well as documentary evidence. The applicant shall not be able totamper the evidence. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), it was madeit clear that arrest should be the last option where arresting the accused isimperative. In the factual backdrop of this case, in the opinion of this Court, theapplicant 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 sheshall join the investigation immediately and shall not take any steps to influencethe 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 thesatisfaction 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 theapplicant during currency of bail.

13. The M.Cr.C is disposed of.

manju

(SUJOY PAUL)JUDGE