Jyoti Sen vs State Of M.P.

I.A. No.14759/2020, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No.47/2020 registered at Police Station Karahiya, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 376, 456, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant - Jyoti Sen that the applicant is a lady. She has not committed any offence. She has falsely been implicated in this case. As the present applicant is a lady, therefore no case under Section 376 of IPC is made out against her. There is no involvement of present applicant in alleged offence. Earlier application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 04/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.25381/2020. It is further submitted that there is no evidence of prior meeting of minds, therefore present applicant cannot be implicated in this case only on the basis of Section 34 of IPC as the incident wherein the present applicant has been implicated is the later part of alleged incident where allegations are of committing offence under Sections 323, 294 of IPC which are bailable. It is also submitted that juvenile accused of this case has already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2005 SC 1067] and Ravi Dudaja Vs. State of Haryana [(2017) 13 SCC 555] and also relied upon the order dated 10/08/2020 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.25401/2020 (Manish Sharma Vs. State of M.P.).

Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that offence is registered under Sections 376, 456, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, which is heinous in nature. It is further submitted that this is the second application on behalf of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail application. Earlier application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court, therefore, present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The other co-accused of this case, who are major, are still in custody. The present applicant has been implicated in this case as she made easy for other co-accused persons to commit the offence. Hence, prayed to reject this second anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the present repeat anticipatory bail application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail. He further submits that the trial Court be directed to decide the bail application filed for regular bail by the applicant on the same day.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, this repeat anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the applicant to surrender before the Trial Court and move an application for regular bail.

Trial Court is directed to decide the regular bail application, if filed by the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day as the applicant is a lady, if possible, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner by the order passed by this Court. The application shall be considered and decided on its own merits.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.