Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for offenses punishable under Sections 384, 389, 452, 506, and 427 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench comprising of Maninder S. Bhatti, J., dismissed the bail application, citing direct allegations of extortion against the applicant and her past behavior of lodging false cases.

The applicant argued that the offenses under Sections 384 and 452 of the IPC are non-bailable. It was contended that no amount or property was delivered to the applicant, thus negating the element of extortion under Section 383 of the IPC. Additionally, it was argued that no offense under Section 452 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. The counsel further argued that the rejection of the bail application by the Trial Court, based on previous cases against the applicant’s husband, was unjust as the applicant herself had been a victim in those cases.

On the contrary, the State and the objector opposed the application, alleging that the applicant has a history of lodging false and frivolous cases. The State contended that direct allegations of extortion were made against the applicant, supported by evidence of CCTV footage and statements from the complainant. It was claimed that the applicant is in the habit of blackmailing and extorting money, and cited specific instances of alleged misconduct captured on CCTV footage. It was contended that the applicant’s conduct warranted denial of bail.

After considering the submissions and perusing the case diary, the Court found direct allegations of extortion against the applicant. The Court noted that a statement by witness corroborated the allegations of extortion and payment of Rs. 1,80,000 to the applicant, indicating that money was given to the applicant under threat. The Court also highlighted the fact that the applicant had lodged multiple cases under Section 376 of the IPC against various individuals, including her husband. Based on the direct allegations and the applicant’s history, the Court declined to grant bail and dismissed the present bail application.

[X v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1730, order dated 02-04-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Shri Vishal Daniel, Counsel for the Applicant

Shri C.S. Parmar, Govt. Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/State

Shri Aman Dawra, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

penal code, 1860

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Code of Criminal Procedure

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.