RAMLESH BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 439(2) of CrPC has been filed for cancellation of bail granted by this Court by order dtd. 16/8/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.38920/2022.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of present application in short are that the respondent No. 2 is facing trial for offence under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 409, 471 of IPC in Crime No.133/2021 registered at Police Station Kachnar District Ashoknagar. He was granted bail by order dtd. 16/8/2022 on the condition that in case, if the respondent No. 2 deposits an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 through cheque in the account of CEO, Zila Panchayat, Ashoknagar and furnishes cash surety of Rs.1,00,000.00, then he shall be released on bail. It is submitted that after the applicant was released on bail, he was welcomed by a mob of more than 100 people, who not only garlanded him and touched his feet and also chanted slogans in his favour. It is further submitted that the applicant was brought to his house in a procession and the applicant was standing in an open Jeep and was waiving his hands to the general public. On the next date, even gunshots were fired by the applicant in the air and the supporters were challenging the applicant. It is submitted that this conduct of the applicant was video-graphed and the said video is also filed along with the application in the form of CD accompanied by a certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the release of the applicant has sent a shock way in the society and the manner in which he came out of the jail has also adversely effected the moral of the witnesses and consequently the witnesses are turning hostile. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2022 SC 2183 has dealt with such a situation and has found that the bail granted to the accused is liable to be cancelled and, accordingly, it is prayed that the bail granted to the respondent No. 2 may be cancelled.

(3.) Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 had filed several complaints against the husband of the present applicant and, therefore, she has enmity against respondent No. 2 and an application for cancellation of bail has been filed with an ulterior motive. Criminal antecedents of the husband of the applicant has also been placed on record. It is submitted that merely because the supporters of the respondent no. 2 had welcomed him after his release and also took blessings from him would not amount to demonstration of any authority or terror. Welcome and blessing after release of an accused is a normal feature of the Indian society and there is nothing unusual in it. The fear which is in the mind of the applicant is without any bonafide reason and the application for cancellation of bail has been filed under misconception and misunderstanding, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the CD enclosed with the application for cancellation of bail is forged and tempered document which requires a separate investigation.