Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupendra Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.49963/2021
(Rupendra Shakya & Another Vs. The State of M.P.)
Gwalior Bench : Dated : 08.11.2021
Shri S.S.Dhakad, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri PPS Bajita, learned Dy. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Shiv Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
At the outset, since learned counsel for the applicants prays for
withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the
applicant no.1 Rupendra Shakya because he has already been arrested
by the police, therefore, the aforesaid anticipatory application has
become infructuous.
Prayer noted.
The application filed on behalf of the applicant no.1 Rupendra
Shakya is dismissed as infructuous.
This is the second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed
by the applicant no.2 Smt. Rajni Shakya, who is apprehending her
arrest in connection with Crime No.244/2021 registered at Police
Station Station Road, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants prays for anticipatory bail
filed on behalf of the applicant no.2 Smt. Rajni Shakya on the ground
that she is sister of crime accused Monu and as per the allegation when
Monu eloped with prosecutrix, he resided at residence of present
applicant alongwith the prosecutrix. No allegation of rape and in other
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.No.49963/2021
(Rupendra Shakya & Another Vs. The State of M.P.)
incriminating evidence is available quo the present applicant. She is
aged about 27 years old. Confinement may bring social disrepute and
personal inconvenience. She undertakes to cooperate in investigation/
trial. On these grounds, she prayed for anticipatory bail.
Learned Dy. Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer
and prayed for rejection of anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection in
allowing the anticipatory bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
Considering the overall submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and fact situation, but without commenting on
the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the application
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is hereby directed that in the event of
arrest, the applicant No.2 Smt. Rajni Shakya shall be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions by the applicant no.2 :-
1.The applicant no.2 will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.49963/2021 (Rupendra Shakya & Another Vs. The State of M.P.)
2. The applicant no.2 will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant no.2 will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be.
4. The applicant no.2 will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
5. The applicant no.2 will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;
6. The applicant no.2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and would cooperate in the investigation;
Application stands allowed and disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Pathak)
AK/- Judge
ANAND KUMAR
2021.11.09
10:08:27 +05'30'