Gajra Devi vs State of M.P.

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 7129/2011, an application for urgent hearing.

Since case diary is available, application is allowed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has an apprehension of her arrest relating to the crime No.36/2011 registered police Station Palera, District Tikamgarh for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 186, 333, 323, 294, 336, 506-B, 188, 120-B of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young youth of 26 years of age. She is Sarpanch of a particular Panchayat. Total 32 accused persons are implicated in the crime. There is no overt-act alleged against the applicant that she assaulted any of the public servant by any manner. Being a Sarpanch, she was implicated in the crime. No offence is made out against the applicant even with the help of section 34, 149 or 120-B of IPC. The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant and therefore, she may be enlarged on bail of anticipatory nature.

Learned Panel lawyer for the State opposes the application.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant has a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature. Consequently this application of applicant u/s 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant Smt. Gajra Devi shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.

The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

It is made clear that if no time limit has been fixed in the order passed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., then in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , such order shall remain in force till the end of the trial. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court before whom challan is filed in such a case, that the applicant/ accused should be enlarged on bail with such terms and conditions, mentioned for compliance of the Arresting Authority, even if there is no specific direction in the bail order.

However, it is also made clear that if the committal Court/trial Court issues an arrest warrant against the applicant due to her future absence before that Court, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.