SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Heena Sonal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2017

M.Cr.C. No.10883/2015

Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the
non-applicant No.1 – State.
Shri V. K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the non-
applicant No.2.
They are heard.
2. This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.
for cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant No.2.
3. Facts

of the case are that the non-applicant No.2
committed an offence under Sections 376(2)(N), 506 and 190
of the IPC, on the basis of complaint lodged by the applicant at
Police Station Alirajpur, offence under the aforesaid Sections
has been registered vide Crime No.241/2014.

4. The non-applicant No.2 filed an application for grant of
anticipatory bail vide M.Cr.C. No.6205/2015. On 29.07.2015,
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail for a period of 30 days and directed
the non-applicant No.2 to apply for regular bail within the
aforesaid period of 30 days, which shall be dealt by the Trial
Court, in accordance with law. The order dated 29.07.2015
reads as under :-

By this application filed under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. applicant Manoj s/o Rajkumar Jain has
moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail
being implicated in Crime No.241/14 registered by
Police Station Alirajpur for offence under Sections
376 (2) (n), 506, 190 of IPC.

Counsel for the applicant has vehemently
urged the fact that the applicant is 50 years old and
an agriculturist and had on ground of charity had
given job to the prosecutrix when her mother had
stated that she was too old to do work in the mess
(eating house) however, on being caught with
another person namely Anil Bohra, she has cried
foul and falsely implicated the applicant. Besides
Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix had also
tried to commit suicide because she want to live
separately with her widow mother. Hence Counsel
prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the
applicant is a respective person and is likely to face
social embarrassment and ostracisation, if arrested.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other
hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel
for the applicant and has submitted that the
applicant has taken advantage with hardship of the
prosecutrix and has been committed rape on her for
last few years ago. Counsel prayed for dismissal of
the application.

On considering the above submissions, and
looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the
application needs to be allowed in the interest of
justice. It is, therefore, allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the
applicant shall be released on bail for the period of
30 days (thirty days) upon his furnishing personal
bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his
further appearance as and when directed.

The applicant shall apply for regular bail
within the aforesaid period of 30 days which shall
be dealt by the Trial Court in accordance with law.

It is also directed that the applicant shall
abide by all the conditions enumerated under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

5. Thereafter, on 21.08.2015, application for grant of
regular bail has been allowed by the Trial Court. The said
order was produced before the CJM, Alirajpur, who has taken
the aforesaid document on record. The relevant part of order
dated 21.08.2015 reads as under :-

ekuuh; izFke vij l U;k;k/kh’k egksn; vyhjktiqj dh
vksj ls izfrHkwfr vkosnu Ø- 159@15 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad
21-8-15 dh izfrfyfi izkIr gqbZA] ftlds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k
fd mDr U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksih eukst firk jktdqekj tSu fu-
fiiY;k rg- dq{kh] ftyk /kkj dh vksj ls Fkkuk vyhjktiqj ds vi-
Ø- 241@14 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bUnkSj ds ,e-
lh-vkj-lh- 6205@15 ds laca/k esa /kkjk 376 2 ¼,u½] 506] 190 Hkk-
na-la- esa fn;s x;s vkns’k ds ikyu esa mDr vkjksih dh vksj ls 30
fnol esa fof/k vuqlkj vkosnu dk fujkdj.k dk funsZ’k fn;k x;k
Fkk] mDr ds vkosnu 439 na-iz-la- Lohdkj dj vfHk;qDr dh vksj
ls bl U;k;ky; dh larqf”B ;ksX; 25]000@ :- dh fu;fer
izfrHkwfr bl vk’k; dh izLrqr dh tkos fd vfHk;qDr vfHk;ksx i
mlds fo:) izLrqr gksus dh n’kk esa mikiZ.k U;k;ky; rFkk fopkj
U;k;ky; ds le{k fu;fer :i ls mifLFkr jgsxkA
vkns’k dh ‘krZ dk mYya?ku djus ij fu;fer tekur
vkosnu Lor% vikLr gks tk;sxkA
mDr vkns’k ds ikyu esa Jh ukuyk fdjkg vf/koDrk us
tekurnkj ‘kksHkkjke firk nsojke fuoklh fiiY;k lfgr rFkk
vkjksih eukst Hkh vkt mifLFkr fd;k x;k gSA
mDr vkns’k ds ikyu esa tekurnkj ‘kksHkkjke firk nsojke
fu- fiiY;k us 25]000@ :- dh izfrHkwfr ,oa vkjksih dk can i
is’k fd;kA tekurnkj us viuh igpku ds laca/k esa Hkkjr fuokZpu
vk;ksx dh Nk;k izfr is’k dhA
tekur rLnhd mijkar Lohdkj dh xbZA
mDr U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s vkns’k esa Fkkuk izHkkjh
vyhjktiqj dks 07 fnol iwoZ vfHk;ksx i is’k djus dh lwpuk
vkjksih dks nsus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k gSA vkjksih mDr U;k;ky; esa
fnukad 27-8-15 dks mi- jgsA
izdj.k dh ikoyh Jh jktsUnz nsoMk U;kf;d eft-
vyhjktiqj dh vksj Hksth tkos D;ksafd efgykvksa ls lacaf/kr izdj.k
mUgh ds U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;s tkosaxsA

6. The police station, Alirajpur filed the charge sheet under
Section 5(B)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. The application for grant of bail was filed
and the same has been allowed vide order dated 15.10.2015.
The relevant part of order dated 15.10.2015 reads as under :-

mHk;i{kksa dks lqukA ewy vfHk;ksx i ,oa U;kf;d
eftLVªsV dh ikoyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ikoyh vuqlkj
vkjksih vijk/k Ø- 241@14 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB
bUnkSj ds ,e-lh-vkj-lh- ua- 6205@15 ds vuqlkj vxzhe izfrHkwfr
fjgk gS rFkk 21-8-15 dks izFke vij l U;k;k/kh’k vyhjktiqj
¼bl U;k;ky; }kjk½ fu;fer izfrHkqfr ij fjgk fd;k x;kA
vfHk;kstu dk ,slk Hkh rdZ ugh gS fd vfHk;qDr us iqoZ
dh fdlh tekur ‘krZ dk mYya?ku fd;k gksA vfHk;qDr }kjk iqoZ
dh tekur ‘krZ dk dksbZ mYya?ku ugh fd;k gSA mlds fo:)
ySafxd vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e 2012 dh /kkjk 5
¼B½@6 ckbZ xbZ gSA vfHk;qDr }kjk izFke tekur vkosnu dh
izfrHkwfr dh fdlh Hkh ‘krZ dk mYya?ku ugha fd;s tkus ls
vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr vkosnu /kkjk 439 na-iz-la- dk ¼f}rh;½
Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA vkjksih dh vksj ls 25000 :Ik;s dh
izfrHkqfr ,oa bruh gh jkf’k dk ca/k i bl U;k;ky; dh larqf”V
;ksX; izLrqr djus ij fuEu ‘krZ ds lkFk fjgk fd;k tkrk gSA
1 vfHk;qDr izR;sd is’kh ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr
2 vfHk;kstu lk{kh.kx dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :Ik ls
izHkkfor ugha djsxkA
vkjksih dh ikoyh vfHk;ksx ds i ds lkFk
layXu dh tkosA
izdj.k iath;u gsrq ekuuh; ftyk,oa l
U;k;k/kh’k egksn; vyhjktiqj ds U;k;ky; esa Hkstk tkosA
izdj.k vxzhe dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 20-10-15 dks

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that
after grant of bail on 21.08.2015, another offence was
registered against the non-applicant No.2 – Manoj Jain vide
Crime No.431/2015 under Sections 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC
in respect of offence committed on 23.08.2015. Para-12 of the
FIR is relevant, which reads as under :-

eSa dljkon clkoV esa vkseizdk’k ds edku esa fdjk;s ls
jgrh gwa rFkk esjs lkFk esa esjh eEeh dksey xqIrk HkkbZ xkSjo xqIrk
Hkh jgrs gS- vkt eSa ?kj ls vdsyh gkV cktkj gksus ls cMokuh
viuh lkbZdy ls vkbZ Fkh okil cMokuh ls 02-30 cts ?kj
dljkon clkoV tk jgh Fkh rHkh HkhyV nso eafnj ds vkxs igqaph
Fkh fd fiNs ls gsepUn tSu o eukst tSu mudh eksVj lk;dy
ls vk;s vkSj gsepUn tSu us cksyk fd rqus eukst ds f[kykQ qBh
fjiksVZ dh gS og okil ys ys vxj fjiksVZ okil ugha yh rks rqs
tku ls [kRe dj nsaxs rc eukst tSu us eqs uaxh uaxh ek¡ cgu
dh xkfy;k nh cksyk fd esjs f[kykQ qBh fjiksVZ djrh gS dqfr;k
lkyh rqs iSls ysuk gS rks ftrus :i;s yxs rks ysys vkSj lekSrk
dj ys ugha rks tku ls [kRe dj nsaxs rc eSaus dgk¡ eqs lekSrk
ugha djuk gS rc eksgYys ds lq[knso o jkds’k vk x;s mUgksaus ?
kVuk ns[kh gS ckn eSa ?kj xbZ ?kVuk esjh eEeh dkseyckbZ] HkkbZ
xkSjo xqIrk dks crkbZ ckn esjh eEeh dh rch;r [kjkc gksus ls
vLirky HkrhZ fd;k ckn HkkbZ xkSjo dks lkFk ysdj fjiksVZ djus
vkbZ gw¡ fjiksVZ djrh gq¡A

8. On 24.11.2014, one more complainant has been lodged
by the applicant at Police Station South Tukoganj, Indore
against the non-applicant No.2 and other persons. After
commission of another offence, the present application for
cancellation of bail has been filed on the ground that the
applicant violated the terms and conditions of regular bail
granted by the Trial Court on 21.08.2015 by committing the
offence on 23.08.2015 and prays that the bail granted by the
Trial Court be cancelled.

9. In reply, Shri V. K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the
non-applicant No.2 has drawn my attention to the statement of
material prosecution witnesses namely, Amratlal Gupta
(PW-1), Omprakash (PW-2), Anil (PW-3), Ranjeet Singh
Solanki (PW-4), Prosecutrix (PW-5) and Komal Bai (PW-6),
whose statements were recorded between 04.11.2015 to
06.02.2017. He has also submitted that statement of Dr.
Meenakshi Mandloi (PW-7), Dr. Bhupendra Yadav (PW-8),
Smt. Manorama Sisodiya (PW-9) and Rakesh Vyas (PW-10)
have been recorded between 22.03.2017 to 28.03.2017.

10. The trial is at the verge of completion. The prosecutrix
(PW-5) has turned hostile and, thus, no case for cancellation
of bail, as prayed is made out and prays for rejection of

11. The prosecutrix in her statement has not made any
allegation against the non-applicant in respect of commission
of rape. Komal Bai (PW-6), mother of the prosecutrix also in
her statement has not made any allegation against the accused
and this witness has been declared hostile and had not
supported the case of the prosecution.

12. Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that this
application for cancellation of bail was filed on 01.12.2015 but
number of times, case was adjourned, on 05.10.2016, this
Court observed that if there is any threat to the girl, she shall
be free to approach the Station House Officer/Superintendent
of Police and the SHO/SP shall provide appropriate security to
the girl for attending the Court proceedings.

13. Inspite of order passed by this Court on 05.10.2016, she
has not availed the aforesaid facility, as is evident from order
dated 13.12.2016.

14. The law on cancellation of bail is well settled.
Cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner. In
the absence of sufficient materials to show that the accused
was threatening the applicant bail granted by the trial Court
cannot be cancelled. It is not the case of the applicant that the
bail is procured by suppression of material facts. Consideration
of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing
that one for cancellation of bail.

15. Considering these facts, at this stage, when statement of
prosecutrix has been recorded and she in her statement has
denied the allegation of rape against the non-applicant No.2,
no case for cancellation of bail, as prayed is made out.
M.Cr.C. No.10883/2015 is accordingly, dismissed.

(P. K. Jaiswal)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation