AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is second repeat application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner after rejection of earlier one on 05.02.2014 on merits in M.Cr.C.951/2014 with liberty to file regular bail application after surrender.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/Ss.420 IPC, u/S.45-S/58-D (5-A) Reserve Bank of India Act and u/S 3(1)(2) & 4 M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 registered as Crime No.153/2011 by Police Station University, District Gwalior (M.P.).
Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Present is a petition u/S.438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner who is a woman aged 45 years and apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid offences. The earlier application had been dismissed on merits on 05.02.2014 in shape of M.Cr.C.951/2014 vide Annexure A-1 by holding that prayer for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be acceded to as it is not maintainable, with liberty to file a regular bail application after surrender.
The petitioner is before this Court yet again making the same prayer for grant of anticipatory bail after more than 6-1/2 years of rejection of last bail application.
New ground raised is that co-accused Shivram Verma, Mukesh Verma and Pradeep Prajapati have been acquitted of the same charges by judgment dated 27.03.2018 in Special Case No.2/14 by the Special Judge [M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000], Gwalior (M.P.), vide Annexure A-7.
Moreso, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a woman aged 45 years who may not be able to bear the rigors of incarceration.
What is noticeable on the legal front is that Section 14 of the 2000 Act bars grant of anticipatory bail and therefore unless and until it is established prima facie that no offence is made out against the petitioner, this Court cannot overlook the said statutory bar.
From perusal of the allegations made, prima facie, the offence punishable under the special enactment of 2000 appears to be made out. However, the sting of the allegations/charges may have been blunted to some extent by the acquittal of the co-accused but that by itself could not lead to a conclusion prima facie that no offence is made out against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Rathore has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs.State of Maharashtra and another [(2014) 16 SCC 623]" which, in the considered opinion of this Court, has no application in the present case since the matter before the Apex Court concerned Section u/S.439 and not 438 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, this Court declines interference and dismisses this petition in view of statutory bar contained u/S.14 of 2000 Act which the petitioner is unable to overcome.
However, if the petitioner surrenders before the trial court and moves an application for regular bail, the trial court is expected to decide the same either on the same day or at the earliest.
With the above said liberty, present petition stands dismissed.