U C MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.)ON behalf of the petitioner, this second repeat petition has been preferred under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, as her earlier petition in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 27/2/2015 in MCRC 988/2015, by extending liberty to revive the prayer after filing of the charge sheet and it appears that this petition has been filed under such liberty.
(2.)PETITIONER is in custody since 20/01/2015 in connection with Crime No.224/2011 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 120 of IPC, section 3(1)(2)(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sarankshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and sections 45(S) and 48(B) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
(3.)PETITIONER 's counsel, after taking us through the bail petition and the paper placed on record along with the earlier rejection order of this Court as well as the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that even if the evidence collected by the investigating agency and submitted along with the charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C., is taken into consideration as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of any of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner, and in such premises, she has been falsely implicated in the matter. In continuation, he said that the petitioner never remained active Director of the alleged company, thus it could not be said that any of the alleged acts to defraud any victim or beneficiary was committed by her. In continuation, he said that the first information report was not registered at the instance of any of the defrauded persons; the same has been registered in the name of Station House Officer of the Police Station for the offence under section 420 of IPC. He also said that any of the alleged offences of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or under Reserve Bank of India Act are also not made out against the petitioner. In further argument, he said that in any of the alleged offences, the sentence of life imprisonment has not been prescribed under the law, so during pendency of the trial, the petitioner should not be detained by way of pre -trial detention. Petitioner has already suffered near about four months in judicial custody and trial of the case will take considerable long time for its conclusion.
Apart from the aforesaid, he also said that the petitioner being a woman is entitled for extending benefit of bail. In addition, it was argued that co -accused of the impugned crime situated in the similar circumstances have been extended benefit of bail by orders of this Court on earlier occasions. In support of such contention, he also referred to copy of certain orders passed by this Court and prayed for extending benefit of bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity also. Apart from the aforesaid, it was also argued that name of the present petitioner was stated at belated stage of investigation only by four witnesses namely Yashwardhan Sharma, Jitendra Rawat, Smt. Premlata Chuorasiya and Smt Madhu Chourasiya and not by other witnesses. With these submissions, he prayed to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner by allowing this petition.