Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendar Gujral vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52350
1 MCRC-40198-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40198 of 2023
MAHENDAR GUJRAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Pramod Thakre - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri S.N. Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2/Smt. Nancy Swamy by the trial court vide order dated 05.01.2023.
It is submitted that the respondent No.2 preferred an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 120-B, 429, 468, & 471 of Indian Penal Code & Section 292-C of the Municipal Corporation Act vide Crime No.110/2022 registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur before the trial Court and the trial Court vide impugned order 05.01.2023 has allowed the bail application of the respondent No.2 on medical ground. It is argued that once the anticipatory bail application of the respondent No.2 has already been rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 09.12.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.54516 of 2022 taking into consideration the medical ground then there was no Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 23-10-2024 11:39:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52350 2 MCRC-40198-2023 occasion for the trial Court to consider and allow the regular bail application on similar ground based upon unreliable documents. The respondent No.2 is a habitual offender and defrauds many people. Bail applications of co- accused persons have already been dismissed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the bail granted to the respondent should have been recalled and she be taken into custody. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 and Harjit Singh vs. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 633.
On notice being issued, a short reply has been filed by the respondent No.2 to the application stating therein that the application for grant of bail has been allowed by learned trial Court considering the medical condition of the respondent No.2 in terms of the provisions prescribed under Section 437 (1) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that she herself surrendered and arrested when she is suffering from a serious disease of breast cancer and the trial court while allowing the bail application has called the medical report and considering all the medical documents has granted bail to her. Thereafter, she is continuously appearing before the trial court and has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the bail order. He has placed upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another (2014) 16 SCC 508 and it is argued that once the application is allowed by the trial Court then the in terms of settled principle of law, the Superior Court should not cancel order granting bail based on a supervening Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 23-10-2024 11:39:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52350 3 MCRC-40198-2023 event.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Proviso to section 437 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"(1) When any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but (i)such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii)such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognisable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm."
The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil V CBI, (2022)10 SCC 51 in context of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has observed as under:-
"68. Section 437 of the Code is a provision dealing with bail in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 23-10-2024 11:39:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52350
4 MCRC-40198-2023 case of non-bailable offences by a court other than the High Court or a Court of Sessions. Here again, bail is the rule but the exception would come when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the accused has been guilty of the offense punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Similarly, if the said person is previously convicted of an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more or convicted previously on two or more occasions, the accused shall not be released on bail by the magistrate.
69. Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when the accused is under the age of sixteen years, sick or infirm or being a woman, is something which is required to be taken note of. Obviously, the court has to satisfy itself that the accused person is sick or infirm.
70. The power of a court is quite enormous while exercising the power under Section 437."
When a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied. The trial court vide impugned order has taken into consideration the medical condition of the respondent No.2 in view of the medical documents submitted by her as well as the proviso appended to Section 437 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has granted bail to the respondent No.2. The law is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh & Others Etc vs State Of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149 wherein certain guidelines have been framed regarding application for cancellation of bail. It was further considered in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam and others etc. v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2020 SC 317 . The respondent No.2 is regularly appearing before the trial court and has not violated any terms and conditions of the bail order. Thus, the considering the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme and placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, this Court does not deem Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 23-10-2024 11:39:37 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52350 5 MCRC-40198-2023 it appropriate to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the learned trial Court.
Accordingly this application for cancellation of bail is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 23-10-2024 11:39:37 AM