Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 42 (MP)

Antesh v. State of M. P.

2015-01-12

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. These are the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the CrPC filed on behalf of applicant Smt. Antesh and Shiv Singh. 3. A complaint Case No. 946/2014 has been registered in the Court of JMFC, Sheopur for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. 4. It is alleged that when the petitioner Smt. Antesh filed an application for appointment as Assistant Ajnganwadi Worker, she manipulated and forged the BPL card and her name was malafidely entered, whereas it was not existing in the original BPL card. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that, applicant Shiv Singh is the head of the family on the basis of which in the BPL card has been issued and name of the applicant Smt. Antesh wife of Birju Rawat Birju Rawat son of Shiv Singh is shown. In other words, applicant Smt. Antesh is the daughter in law of Shiv Singh and members of his family. 6. When applicant Antesh applied for the post of Assistant Anganwadi Worker, the BPL card does not reflect her name. Subsequently, she applied for the same and allegedly forged the BPL card. 7. In Writ Petition No.3812/2012 (S) Smt. Antesh Rawat v. State of M.P. and others, the Hon’ble Court has referred the matter to the Collector for inquiry as to the validity and genuineness of the BPL card. Subsequently, inquiry conducted by the District Project Officer, ICDS, Vijaypur, District Sheopur. 8. It is found that Shiv Singh is the father-in-law of Smt. Antesh and Birju is her husband. On page 27 the Observer of Sector Tarrakhurd, ICDS, Vijaypur has given a list of members of the family of Smt. Antesh, which include Shiv Singh, son Birju, and Smt. Antesh, daughter-in-law. 9. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that a duplicate BPL card was issued by the Competent Officer and names of 10 members of the family of applicant Shiv Singh which includes the name of applicant Smt. Antesh is shown. 10. The gist of the matter is that the applicant even if have included her name in the BPL card has not done so with intention to defraud or to make mala fide claims. That being so, at this juncture, this Court is of the opinion, that the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail. 11. 10. The gist of the matter is that the applicant even if have included her name in the BPL card has not done so with intention to defraud or to make mala fide claims. That being so, at this juncture, this Court is of the opinion, that the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail. 11. It is directed that petitioners make themselves present before the trial Court within 10 days from today and in the event of their arrest and filing application for regular bail the petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 12. The petitioners are directed to join the Investigation immediately and to fully co-operate with the investigation. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of CrPC. 13. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa v. State of Maharastra and other JT2010 (13) SC 247, this order shall remain in force till the end of trial. However, the applicant has to furnish a fresh bail bond and surety before the trial Court after filing of the challan. Amit Lahoti for petitioners; Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State; Alok Katare for complainant.