Jeetendra S/O Late Kirtichand … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2020


Supreme Court of India

Jeetendra S/O Late Kirtichand … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2020

Author: Hon’Ble The Justice

Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant

                                                                          REPORTABLE


                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.408 OF 2020
                   [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.)No. 10145 OF 2019]


      Jeetendra                                                      ..... Appellants(s)
                                                     VERSUS
      State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.                               .....Respondents(s)


                                               JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. Rejection of third bail application by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Indore Bench has prompted the appellant to approach this

Court. He has been in custody since 5th January, 2019 in connection

with Crime No. 210/2012 registered at Police Station Chhatripura,

Indore for offences punishable under Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200

and 120­B of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

4. Wife of the appellant lodged a case under Sections 498­A, 323

and 506 of IPC against him, registered as Crime No. 96/2008, wherein
Signature Not Verified

the appellant was arrested. Later, he was released on bail upon
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Date: 2020.03.18
16:11:02 IST
Reason:

furnishing bail bonds of Rs.7,000/­ along with documents of their

Page | 1
residential property as a personal bond by his mother. Subsequently,

the matrimonial dispute was amicably settled and as a result, the

appellant was acquitted on 23rd April, 2010.

5. On 20th May, 2012 , Dileep Borade (appellant’s cousin) and his

son Vishal Borade lodged a complaint with Police alleging that

documents of the residential property furnished as personal bond for

appellant’s release on bail in the matrimonial case were forged. This

led to registration of Crime No. 210/2012 for which the appellant is

incarcerated for more than a year.

6. From perusal of the record, we note that a closure report was

filed by the Police on 24th May, 2013 in Crime No. 210/2012 but the

learned Judicial Magistrate after five years ordered further

investigation on 20th June, 2018. Consequently, appellant was

arrested on 5th January, 2019 and denied bail by the Additional

Sessions Judge. The High Court also vide order dated 22 nd January,

2019 declined to release him on bail. Appellant filed a second bail

application before the High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn

on 10th April, 2019 with liberty to apply again after examination of

certain material witnesses. Meanwhile, the police re­investigated the

case and submitted a second report on 2 nd September, 2019 stating

that no offence has been committed by the appellant and he deserves

to be discharged. After filing of this closure report, appellant

approached the High Court for a third time. But he was denied bail

Page | 2
yet again vide the impugned order on grounds that the second closure

report has not been accepted by the Trial Court and that appellant has

failed to point out whether material witnesses have been examined or

not. The appellant has thus been left with no other option but to

approach this Court. While issuing notice, this Court on 14 th

November, 2019 directed that the appellant be released on interim

bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the

counsel representing the complainant, we are satisfied that the

appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The High Court ought to

have kept in view that `Bail is rule and jail is exception’. There is no

gainsaying that bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical

manner as it concerns the liberty of a person. In peculiar

circumstances of this case where closure report was filed twice, the

High Court ought not to have declined bail only because the trial court

was yet to accept the said report. Further, the examination of

witnesses would depend upon the fate of 2 nd closure report.

Considering the nature of allegations attributed to the appellant and

the period he has already spent in custody, we are satisfied that he

deserves to be released on bail forthwith.

8. The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned order of the High

Court dated 16th September, 2019 is set aside. The interim bail order

dated 14th November, 2019 is made absolute. The appellant shall

Page | 3
stand released on regular bail subject to the bail bonds already

furnished by him to the satisfaction of the trial court.

……………………………….

(S.A. BOBDE)
CJI

……..……………………..J.

(B.R. GAVAI)

…………………………… J.

(SURYA KANT)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 18.03.2020

Page | 4



Source link