Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/13028/2016 of SMT. SAPNA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
Inani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
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.
Arguments
29/12/2016
Shri Ritesh Inani, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Romesh Dave, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the Objector.
The applicant has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 438/2016 Police Station Annapurna District Indore M.P., concerning offences under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC.
It is alleged that in 2005 applicant and co-accused obtained a plot from Jawahar Nagar Grih Nirman society hiding the fact that they had already obtained a plot from Vishal Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Indore by providing wrong information and filing false affidavits in this regard and therefore committed fraud with members of the society. Thus, the accused applicant has fraudulently occupied immovable property in different societies using illegal ways and means.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent. She has falsely been implicated in the case. The complainant filed a false complaint against her due to enmity. Since at the time of the incident applicant was a minor the act of obtaining plot was done by her parents, so prayed for anticipatory bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned PL and learned Counsel for the Objector. They submitted that the applicant wrongly obtained the plots in different societies and committed fraud. The applicant is a habitual offender. The application of another co-accused was also rejected by this Court by order dt. 20.12.2016. Hence, the application for grant of anticipatory bail be rejected.
Although this Court had previously rejected the bail application of the co accused Bhagwantibai, mother of the applicant but in the copy of transfer certificates enclosed with the case diary the date of birth of the applicant is recorded as 1/1/90 which shows that the applicant was minor at the time of the incident. Her mother is already in custody. So it is appropriate looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest by Police in the aforesaid case, the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for her regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:- The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;- The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused; The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
M.Jilla.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)Vacation Judge