Madhya Pradesh High Court

MCRC/51437/2018 of MAHILA SAYIN QUERESHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.51437/2018 (Mahila Sayin Quereshi Vs The State of

1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHMCRC No.51437/2018(Mahila Sayin Quereshi Vs The State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 31.12.2018

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri N.S.Kirar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.With consent heard finally.

This is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.preferred by the applicant for the alleged offences registered at CrimeNo.376/2018 at Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna, punishable underSections 354, 341, 323, 294, 506, 34 and 376 of IPC.

It is the submission of counsel for applicant that perusal ofcontents of F.I.R. itself indicates that offence under Section 354 and 376of IPC is not made out. It is the submission of counsel for the applicantthat a false case has been registered against the applicant. In fact,another co-accused Parvez Khan is the son of complainant. Complainanttried to implicate the present applicant. Initially, she was not arrayed asan accused on the basis of contents of F.I.R. and the case was notregistered against the present applicant. Later on, on the basis ofstatement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the complainant, casehas been registered against the present applicant. She is a lady aged 39years and would not abscond and flee from justice in case anticipatorybail is granted. Confinement would bring social disrepute and personalinconvenience to the applicant. She undertakes to cooperate in theinvestigation and would make herself available as and when required forinvestigation. Another co-accused Parvez Khan has already been enlargedon anticipatory bail vide order dated 09.10.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.39003/2018. Therefore, she seeks parity.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed theprayer and prayed for dismissal of application.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the casediary.

In the fact situation of the case, considering the submissions made HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHMCRC No.51437/2018(Mahila Sayin Quereshi Vs The State of M.P.)

by counsel for the applicant, without expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application filed byapplicant.

It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicantMahila Sayin Quereshi shall be released on bail on her furnishing apersonal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five ThousandOnly) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction ofArresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of thefollowing conditions by the applicant :-

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of thebond executed by her;bond executed by her;

2. The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by apolice officer as and when required. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.police officer as and when required. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

3. The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of thecase so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of thecase so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;of which she is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during thetrial; andtrial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission ofthe trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

C.C. as per rules.

(Anand Pathak) Vacation Judge

AK/-

ANAND KUMAR 2018.12.31 14:59:15 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead