Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1014 (MP)

Vaide v. State of M. P.

2014-08-13

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 258 of 2014, Police Station Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri, offence registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC. Perused the case diary. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as the land sold by her was her and Daulat Singh who contracted to sell the disputed land measuring 4500 sq. ft. part of survey No. 615 and 410/2. Apart from it, no forged document was executed by her as well as Daulat Singh. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection. As alleged by the prosecution, the applicant as well as Daulat Singh contracted to sell the disputed land to Virendra Singh which is ownership of the government. Hence, the applicant has committed the alleged offences. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 4. In the similar allegation the application filed by co-accused Virendra Singh was allowed by this court vide order dated 12.8.14 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6757 of 2014. On the basis of parity, this application is allowed in the following terms: 5. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest by the investigating authority or by the court, the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting Authority. 6. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :- 1. The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her; 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant shall not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance. C.c. as per rules.