top of page


एक आरोपी को ज़मानत देने से हाईकोर्ट के इंकार के बाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उसे ज़मानत देते हुए कहा कि ज़मानत देना नियम है और जेल में रखना अपवाद। इस आदमी के ख़िलाफ़ पुलिस ने मामले को बंद कर दिया था लेकिन हाईकोर्ट ने इसके बाद भी उसे ज़मानत नहीं दी। इस आदमी के ख़िलाफ़ 2012 में धोखाधड़ी का एक मामला दर्ज किया गया था और 2013 में पुलिस ने इस मामले को बंद कर दिया। लेकिन पाँच साल बाद न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट ने इस मामले की दुबारा जाँच का आदेश दिया।

इसके बाद उसे जनवरी 2019 में गिरफ़्तार कर लिया गया। मध्य प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने उसकी पहली ज़मानत याचिका रद्द कर दी और दूसरी याचिका को वापस ले लिया गया यह कहते हुए ठुकरा दिया गया। इस बीच पुलिस ने मामले की जाँच की और दूसरी रिपोर्ट पेश की जिसमें कहा गया था कि अपीलकर्ता ने कोई अपराध नहीं किया है और उसे छोड़ दिया जाना चाहिए। मामले को बंद कर दिए जाने की इस रिपोर्ट के बाद आरोपी ने हाईकोर्ट में इस आधार पर फिर ज़मानत की अर्ज़ी दी।

आरोपी की अपील स्वीकार करते हुए मुख्य न्यायाधीश एसए बोबडे, बीआर गवई और सूर्य कांत की पीठ ने कहा, "हाईकोर्ट को यह बात ध्यान में रखने चाहिए थी कि 'ज़मानत का नियम है, जेल अपवाद है'। इस बात से इंकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि ज़मानत यांत्रिक तरीक़े से न तो दी जानी चाहिए और न ही इससे इंकार की जानी चाहिए क्योंकि एक व्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता से यह जुड़ा हुआ है। इस मामले की विचित्र परिस्थिति यह है कि इसको दो बार बंद किया गया, हाईकोर्ट को सिर्फ़ इसलिए ज़मानत से इंकार नहीं करना चाहिए क्योंकि निचली अदालत ने अभी इस रिपोर्ट को स्वीकार नहीं किया है। फिर, गवाहों की जाँच दूसरी रिपोर्ट की स्थिति पर निर्भर करेगा। अपीलकर्ता के ख़िलाफ़ जिस तरह के आरोप लगाए गए हैं उसकी प्रकृति को देखते हुए और हिरासत में उसने जो समय बिताया है उसे देखते हुए हम इस बारे में आश्वस्त हैं कि उसे तत्काल ज़मानत दे दी जानी चाहिए।"







[Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.)No. 10145 OF 2019]


Jeetendra..................................................................................................... Appellants(s)


State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.......................................................... Respondents(s)






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 120­B 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 498­A, 323


and 506 of IPC against him, registered as Crime No. 96/2008, wherein 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 re­investigated the case and submitted a second report on 2nd 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 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


7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the 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 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.

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.
















DATED : 18.03.2020




bottom of page