JEETENDRA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 954 · Decided: 18-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
JEETENDRA
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2020)
MARCH 18, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Bail:
Complaint against accused – Alleging that documents of
residential property, furnished by him as personal bond for his
release on bail in previous criminal case relating to matrimonial
dispute, was forged – Closure report by police – Judicial
Magistrate ordered further investigation and accused was arrested
– Bail denied twice – After re-investigation second report of police
that no offence committed – Third bail application also denied by
impugned order – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: When the
closure report was filed twice, High Court ought not to have
declined bail, only because trial court was yet to accept the said
report.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court ought to have kept in view that
‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’. There is no gain saying that
bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner
as it concerns the liberty of a person. In peculiar circumstances
of the present 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 2nd closure report.
Considering the nature of allegations attributed to the appellant
and the period he has already spent in custody, he deserves to
be released on bail forthwith. [Para 7] [956-C-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 408 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2019 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in MCRC-34732 of 2019
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 954
954
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Akhil
Abraham Roy, Vijay Valsan (For M/s K J John And Co) Ravi Prakash
Mehrotra, Ankit Agarwal, Harsh Parashar, Amartya Singh, Rajesh
Srivastava, Vishal Borade, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
JUDGMENT
1. 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 120-B 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 498-A, 323
and 506 of IPC against him, registered as Crime No. 96/2008,  wherein
the appellant was arrested. Later, he was released on bail upon
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.7,000/- along with documents of their
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 22nd 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 re-investigated the case and submitted a second report on 2nd
JEETENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
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 yet again vide the impugned order on grounds that the
second closure report has not been acc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.