Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1048 (MP)

Sudha Bhadauriya v. State of M. P.

2015-10-01

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. Case Diary is perused. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. This is a repeat petition filed under section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail after rejection of earlier one which was dismissed vide order dated 15.6.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5028/2015, by acceding to the request of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners shall surrender and apply for regular bail. 4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with offences punishable under sections 420 and 467 of IPC registered as Crime No.316/2013 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind. 5. The counsel for the State informs that once above said liberty as granted has not been exercised by surrendering and applying for regular bail, the present repeat anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma and others v. State of M.P., 1996 JLJ 642 , submits that para 13 of the said judgment provides thus : 13. While rejecting the first application there is nothing in law authorising the Court in directing the petitioner to surrender before the competent authority. Conditions can be imposed under sub-section (2) of section 438, CrPC when the Court directs that in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail. But when the first application is rejected, the law does not envisage that any such condition can be imposed that the accused should surrender before competent authority. In view of the said reasoning, it cannot be inferred that after rejection of the first application, the accused is deliberately absconding. Consequently, the second application cannot be said to be untenable on the said score as well. 7. On bare perusal of the above said finding of the Division Bench of this Court, it is amply clear that no such conditions can be imposed while rejecting anticipatory bail application that the petitioners shall surrender and apply for regular bail. Even if, such direction was made on request of the counsel while rejecting first anticipatory bail application, the same cannot bind the petitioners in terms of the law laid down by the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma (supra). Even if, such direction was made on request of the counsel while rejecting first anticipatory bail application, the same cannot bind the petitioners in terms of the law laid down by the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma (supra). Thus, petitioners' right to pray for repeat bail cannot stand foreclosed merely for having made prayer for surrendering and applying for regular bail in the earlier bail petition, in case merits have not been considered by the Court. 8. In the present case, the first anticipatory bail application which was dismissed on 15.6.2015, the merits were not considered. 9. The allegations against the petitioners are of cheating and forgery by forging mark-sheets for getting appointment on the posts of Ancillary Nurse Midwife (ANM) recruitment of which took place somewhere in 2009-2010. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that similarly placed co-accused Smt. Geeta and Smt. Vandana have since been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by orders dated 4.9.2015 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6594/2015 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6944/2015, respectively. 11. The State counsel on being asked concedes that that the case of the present petitioners is similar to the cases of above co-accused. 12. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to take a different view than the view taken earlier by this Court in the cases of co-accused Smt. Geeta and Smt. Vandana. The petitioners have no criminal background. 13. Considering the above facts and that there no criminal antecedents of the petitioners and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of the petitioners fleeing from justice, though this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioners but with certain stringent conditions in view of the nature of the offence. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem fit appropriate to allow this application under section 438 of CrPC in the following terms. 15. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 16. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :- 1. The petitioners will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them; 2. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) each to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 16. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions :- 1. The petitioners will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them; 2. The petitioners will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The petitioners will not indulge themselves 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; 4. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused; 5. The petitioners will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6. The petitioners will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. 7. Till conclusion of investigation, the petitioners will mark their presence at concerned Police Station once every week. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.