Ekta Soni vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, directing that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety of like amount. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, noted the applicant's undertaking not to obstruct the complainant's access to the ground floor, to clear rent dues, and to continue paying monthly rent. The Court also imposed standard bail conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, not inducing witnesses, not committing similar offences, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, not leaving India without permission, and not engaging in future criminal activities. The order stated that the benefit of bail would be withdrawn in case of default or commission of further offences. The application was disposed of.

Facts

The applicant, Ekta Soni, an Assistant GST Commissioner, is seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleges that she rented the first floor of a residential house from the complainant, failed to vacate it after the agreed 11-month period (starting 10.9.2023), and prevented the complainant from accessing the ground floor, even unleashing her dog on him. The applicant claims innocence, asserting she is falsely implicated to expedite the house vacation. The complainant alleges the applicant stopped paying rent for a year, demanded Rs. 20.00 lakhs to vacate, and attacked him with her dog. The applicant, in turn, stated the complainant has access to the ground floor and undertook to clear rent dues and disputes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS 2023, considering the allegations of criminal trespass, assault, and extortion? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant, a government servant in a responsible position, contends she is falsely implicated to pressure her to vacate the rented premises. She argues that the prosecution's version is fabricated and that the dispute is primarily a civil one concerning the tenancy. She also submitted that the complainant has access to the ground floor and that she is willing to clear rent dues. Revenue/State's arguments: The complainant (objector) argued that the applicant prevented him from accessing the ground floor, which was never let out to her. He further alleged that the applicant stopped paying rent for a year, demanded Rs. 20.00 lakhs to vacate, and assaulted him with her dog, thus justifying the rejection of her anticipatory bail application.