Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunita vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2016
MCRC-21824-2016
(SUNITA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22-12-2016
Shri P.N. Das, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-
State.
Issue notice to respondent No.2 Ashok in respect of the bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. both by registered AD and ordinary modes on payment of process fee and supply of other requisites within seven clear working days. The notice be made returnable within six weeks. Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of this bail application on behalf of the respondent no.1-State. Hence, no further notice is required to be sent to it.
Heard on I.A. No.24996/2016, which is an application for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant till the final disposal of this bail application.
Respondent Ashok has filed a Criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of Shir Pankaj Yadav Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhainsdehi of Betul district. Thereupon, a criminal complaint case No.877/2016 is registered against the applicant under Section 326A of the IPC vide order dated 14.10.2016 on the accusation that she threw acid at respondent Ashok. As a result, his eyes were damaged, and his face was badly burnt.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 23.03.2015 upon an FIR of the applicant, Police Station Jhallar of Betul district has registered a case against respondent Ashok at Crime No.48/2015 under Sections 326(B), 376(1)(2) and (5) of the IPC. He submits that respondent Ashok and co-accused persons had abducted the applicant on 28.10.2015 to force her to enter into a compromise in the aforesaid case. During the abduction period, they kept her in confinement, committed marpeet with her and gave her death threats. Thereupon, on 28.10.2015 the applicant lodged an FIR at Police Station Betul of the incident. Her FIR is registered at Crime No.946/2015 under Sections 365, 342, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC against respondent Ashok and other co- accused persons. He submits that after the committal proceedings in the Crime No.48/2015, Sessions Case No.280/2015 is registered, which is pending for trial before the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Betul. On 23.11.2015 in that case, the applicant has filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of his bail. Thereupon, respondent Ashok has falsely filed the said criminal complainant against the applicant in retaliation. He submits that this is the first ever criminal case registered against the applicant. He submits that the applicant is an unmarried girl aged about 22 years and that she is a permanent resident of Betul district. He submits that looking to the allegations levelled against the applicant, her custodial interrogations are not required. He submits that if the applicant appears before the court in the criminal complaint case, then she apprehends that she may be taken into custody as the learned JMFC has no jurisdiction to grant her bail under Section 326A IPC. Upon these submission, he prays to grant ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the perusal of the FIRs of the aforesaid crime numbers and contents of the bail application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant in Sessions Case No.280/2015, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. Therefore, the I.A. is allowed. It is ordered that applicant Sunita D/o Banga @ Ramdas Yadav shall appear before the aforesaid Magisterial Court in criminal complainant Case No.877/2016 on or before 16.01.2017 and if the learned JMFC takes her into custody, then she shall be released immediately on bail upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the same amount to his satisfaction until further orders of this Court.
It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Court within the stipulated period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.
List the case for final hearing on the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after the service of notice upon respondent No.2 Ashok is complete.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE haider