JEETENDRAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

954                       [2020]
               SUPREME COURT     4 S.C.R. 954
                              REPORTS                      [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A                                JEETENDRA
                                       v.
                    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2020)
B                              MARCH 18, 2020
        [S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
            Bail:
            Complaint against accused – Alleging that documents of
C     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
D
      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
E
             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
F     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
G     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
H
                                      954
    JEETENDRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.                              955


      Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Akhil            A
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                                        B
      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,            C
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
                                                                             D
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.                                           E
                th
       5. On 20 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
                                                                             F
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        G
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         H
956             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A     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 accepted by the Trial Court and
      that appellant has failed to point out whether material witnesses have
B
      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
      14th November, 2019 directed that the appellant be released on interim
      bail.
             7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the
C     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
D     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,
      we are satisfied that he deserves to be released on bail forthwith.
E
            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 stand
      released on regular bail subject to the bail bonds already furnished by
      him to the satisfaction of the trial court.
F

      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.




G




H