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) 35561

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT, J
Peetam Bai Meena – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 13315/2024



Advocates:
Siddharth Datt,Advocate General

The court ruled that the applicant's alleged forgery of an admit card does not constitute an offence under Section 467 of IPC, as the admit card is not a valuable security.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC - Allegation of forgery regarding admit card - Court finds that admit card is not a valuable security, thus questioning applicability of Section 467 - Applicant is a woman aged 30, in custody since 13.03.2024 - Government Advocate raises concerns about potential absconding due to brother's status - Court allows bail with conditions. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Bail - Conditions - Applicant required to furnish security and personal bond for appearance before the trial court, along with compliance with conditions under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (Paras 6-8)

ORDER

This is first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.154/2024 registered at Police Station-Mandla, District-Mandla (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

2 . Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that offence under Section 467 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. As per prosecution story, applicant is said to have forged admit card by replacing her photograph with that of another candidate who appeared in examination for applicant. It is submitted that admit card is no valuable security, therefore, offence committed by applicant will not fall within definition of 467 of IPC.

Rest of the offences are punishable up to seven years of imprisonment.

Applicant is a woman aged about 30 years and she is in jail since 13.03.2024. In these circumstances, applicant be released on bail.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the bail application. It is submitted that there is chances that applicant may abscond from law. Government Advocate raised apprehension that applicant may not be available for trial as brother of applicant is absconding from law.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Prosecution is at liberty to take action against absconding accused person and attached their properties in accordance with law. Apprehension that applicant will abscond from law is not based on any facts, but only suspicion of prosecution agency. Other offences are punishable up to seven years of imprisonment. Applicant was taken on police remand and has been sent to jail in judicial custody. Applicant is a woman aged about 30 years. 6 . Considering aforesaid circumstances, bail application filed by the applicant is allowed on following condition:

    (i) Applicant will furnish security for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) before the trial Court for her appearance before Court.

7. With aforesaid condition, applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her regular appearance before Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial.

8. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions of Section 437(3) of Cr. P. C. as under:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

    (b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected of the commission of which she is suspected and;
    (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

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