IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR rd ON THE 3 OF AUGUST, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35669 of 2022 Between:-

NEHA SHARMA D/O RAMAKANT SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 187 JAGANNATH COLONY NAVLAKHA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION DEPALPUR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE AND SHRI NILESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)

This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

They are heard. Perused the documents / challan papers.

This is applicant's third bail application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as she is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.06/2020 registered at Police Station Depalpur, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Her earlier bail applications, M.Cr.C. No.9196/2020 and 14292/2020 have already been dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 12/05/2019 and 29/05/2020 on merits. In the present application, learned counsel for the applicant has heavily relied upon an order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.45765/2021 dated 15/06/2022, wherein the applicant had challenged the proceedings initiated against her under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. wherein she was proclaimed as absconding.

In the aforesaid petition, this Court had quashed the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. issued against the applicant while observing that the order under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. had led to curtail her valuable right to apply for anticipatory bail. It was also observed that the orders of dismissal of her anticipatory bail reveal that they have been passed only on the ground that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against her. Thus, Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that now that when the order of proclamation is not a bar to grant anticipatory bail, and her earlier applications have been dismissed on the ground that the applicant was declared as a proclaimed offender, the present application be allowed as the applicant happens to be the wife of the main accused and has been falsely implicated in the case. Counsel has also submitted that the applicant has already divorced her husband prior to lodging of the FIR and has nothing to do with his business. Hence, it is submitted that the application be allowed.

On the other hand, Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the objector has vehemently opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier orders of dismissal to submit that this Court has wrongly noted in the order dated 15/06/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.45765/2021, that the earlier orders of dismissal of applicant’s anticipatory bail was only on the ground that a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against her, however, in the earlier orders, this Court has also gone through the merits of the case and proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was only one of ancillary ground. It is also submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and this is not the first case registered against her under the section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC as on earlier occasions also, she and her husband have been arrested in connection with the similar offences wherein innocent farmers/land owners have been duped of crores of rupees. Counsel has also submitted that in the present case, the sale deed has been executed by the complainant in favour of the company run by the husband of the applicant and not a single penny has been given to him and the cheques which were issued to him towards the sale consideration of Rs.1,52,17,500/-, have already dishonoured and against the applicant also, a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrumen