SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38454

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, J
Smt. Vidhya Parmar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 47452/2024



Advocates:
Amitabh Gupta,Advocate General

The court granted bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. due to insufficient evidence against the applicant and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 439 and 480(3) - Bail application - The applicant, in custody since 18.10.2024 for charges including assault and theft, seeks bail on grounds of false accusations and lack of evidence against her - The court considered the ongoing investigation and the absence of a charge-sheet, ultimately deciding to grant bail. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Bail - Principles governing - The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the applicant's presence during trial while balancing the rights of the accused and the interests of justice. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is charged in a case involving assault and theft, claiming she was a victim of harassment prior to the incident and asserting that evidence against her is insufficient. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to grant bail despite the ongoing investigation and potential evidence against the applicant. (Paras 7-8)

Issues: The main issues addressed include the sufficiency of evidence for bail and the applicant's rights as a tenant and alleged victim. (Paras 4-5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's continued detention was not justified given the lack of a charge-sheet and the need for her to be present for trial. (Paras 7-8)

Result: Bail granted.

ORDER

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ).

2. The applicant is in jail since 18.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.548 of 2024 registered at P.S. Kohe Fiza, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VAISHALI

under Sections 296, 115, 351(2), 304(2), 3(5), 331(6) of BNS and 61 (not included in FIR but order of the lower court mentions it in order).

3. Prosecution story in brief is that at alleged date, time and place applicant as well as co-accused persons entered into the house of complainant and assaulted injured persons with kicks and fists/belt and sticks and also abused filthily. Further, they also also threatened complainant. During aforesaid incident, gold chain was also snatched. In the incident, injured-b Neel Chowdhri received various injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and her husband were tenant in the house owned and possessed by complainant. Later on, father of complainant started harassing the applicant and tried to molest and disrobe her. Therefore, applicant and her husband left the house on 28.08.2024. After one month of leaving the house, the applicant and her husband were assaulted by the complainant party and NCR was registered but not with respect to molestation. On 07.10.2024, the applicant submitted a complaint on CM Helpline. Thereafter, on 24.09.2024, a false report has been lodged against unknown persons. He further submits that applicant being tenant of complainant, therefore she was know to complainant. Further, Deep Singh was also known to complainant party. Still names of complainant and Deep Singh have not been mentioned in the FIR. Applicant is in jail since 18.10.2024. Till Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VAISHALI

today, no TIP has been conducted. On the aforesaid grounds, the applicant be released on bail.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent/objector submitted that in the instant case, investigation is not over and charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Further, only present applicant has been arrested and remaining are absconding. Video of the incident has also been recovered and it has to be analysed. Applicant was present at the time of incident. In NCR, nothing is mentioned about molestation/disrobing of complainant. Further, there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant and Deep Singh is yet to be arrested. Therefore, no case for grant of bail is made out.

6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application.

7. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the applicant on bail.

8. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that she shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. She shall abide by all the conditions Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VAISHALI

enumerated under Section 480(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

9. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.

10. M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top