REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.408 OF 2020 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.)No. 10145 OF 2019]

Jeetendra ..... Appellants(s)

                 VERSUS

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

JUDGMENT

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

the appellant  was  arrested.   Later,  he  was released  on  bail upon

furnishing bail  bonds  of  Rs.7,000/­  along with  documents  of their

Page | 1

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application before the High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn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

Page | 2

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

bail. 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

Page | 3

stand released on regular bail subject to the bail bonds already

furnished by him to the satisfaction of the trial court.    

…………………………….... (S.A. BOBDE)

CJI

……..……………………..J. (B.R. GAVAI)

…………………………… J. (SURYA KANT)

NEW DELHI

DATED : 18.03.2020

Page | 4