Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Jarina Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52276 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. JARINA KHAN W/O TOSHIF KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O AMAN COLONY THANDI
SADAK DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 147, 149, 506 and 333 of the IPC, registered vide Crime No.252/2019 at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia (M.P.).
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is lady aged 35 years, is apprehending her arrest on the basis of 2 registration of offence referred above. It is further submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case and as per allegations, she is a nurse in Government Hospital, Datia. When Hospital Superintendent asked her regarding her absence over the duty, then she not only misbehaved with him but her husband alongwith other persons also came to the cabin of concerned doctor (complainant herein) and beaten him where he sustained injury as broken tooth and several injuries were also sustained by the victim. They torn the government documents also. However, it is submitted that applicant is a lady and has three children. She already suffered termination. Confinement may bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience. Charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon perhaps on 14.11.2022 and therefore, she is in apprehension that she may be arrested because of the nature of allegations and inclusion of offence under Section 333 of the IPC. Therefore, her case may be considered for anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that this is fifth anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. First anticipatory bail application bearing MCRC No.22580/2019 was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2019, second anticipatory bail application bearing MCRC No.36166/2019 was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2019 and both were dismissed on merits. Third anticipatory bail application bearing MCRC No. 40612/2019 dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2019 as withdrawn and fourth anticipatory bail application bearing MCRC No.54104/2019 again dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2020. In the said 3 case, (fourth application) applicant very cleverly did not mention the offence under Section 333 of IPC, therefore, direction was given by the Court (Coordinate Bench) to follow the dictum of Apex Court passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273. Now, this is fifth bail application. Instead of appearing before the Investigating Officer even after the rejection of fourth application, now applicant is again trying to get the order from this Court and she does not appear to come with clean hands because of her previous conduct. Even otherwise, if charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon, even then because of Section 333 of IPC, case deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.
5. This is a case where applicant is facing allegations for offence under Sections 353, 332, 147, 149, 506 and 333 of IPC. Section 333 IPC deals regarding voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. As per allegations, the complainant is Hospital Superintendent in Government Hospital, Datia and is also a Professor and Head of Pathology Department, Government Medical College, Datia. Applicant used to remain absent without any intimation very often and when her absence was marked in the register, then on fateful day she started arguments with complainant and immediately, thereafter, called her brother and husband who came alongwith around 10 hooligans who severely beaten up the complainant and torn the government documents. They also threatened him with dire consequences if her absence is marked in future. Narration of event as referred in case diary in the story 4 indicates the sorry state of affairs. Indiscipline in public service department like health services cannot be countenanced or encouraged in any manner because absence of applicant may directly affect the health status of patients. Therefore, on merits no case is made out at all.
6. On perusal of case diary and documents submitted by applicant, it appears that this is fifth attempt of applicant to get the anticipatory bail. Twice anticipatory bail applications were rejected on merits and more than 3 years, applicant evaded her arrest. This itself shows her response towards the Administration of Justice and Rule of Law. If the allegations of Public Prosecutor are accepted wherein he referred the order dated 20.01.2020 (MCRC No.54104/2019) where she did not refer the offence under Section 333 of IPC in her bail application and obtained order for consideration of the case in light of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) which if found correct on due enquiry, then it may entail the trappings of the contempt of Court also. Be that as it may. Since offence under Section 333 of IPC is existing, therefore, provisions of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) would not be applicable prima facie because said offence entails 10 years of imprisonment. However, at this stage, this Court does not intend to tread on the path of contempt of Court.
7. Considering the nature of allegations which are having serious repercussions, conduct of the applicant wherein she repeatedly filed anticipatory bail applications despite dismissed twice on merits, concealed certain facts regarding Section 333 of IPC in fourth anticipatory bail application and the cumulative circumstances where concept of Rule of Law is tried to be undermined by her conduct, 5 therefore, this Court does not intend to allow this anticipatory bail application.
8. Resultantly, anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Police Authorities are directed to arrest the applicant immediately and alternatively, applicant is at liberty to submit before the course of justice on her own.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Adnan/Rashid RASHID KHAN 2022.11.11 11:43:11 +05'30'