Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhannu Lal Seth vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2021
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-14055-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-14055-2021
(CHHANNU LAL SETH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-04-2021
Mr.Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Pankaj Raj, learned PL for the respondent-State.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the objector.
This is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory
bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime
No.106/2021 registered at Police Station-Madhav, District Katni for the
offence under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case, complainant lodged an FIR to the effect
that he is a broker of foodgrains and collected foodgrains amounting to
88,37,420/- from various shopkeepers and supplied to the applicants from
06.03.2019 to 30.08.2019, but the applicants have not paid any amount of the
aforesaid foodgrains and committed cheating with the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated. The complainant has lodged the
report by suppressing the material fact. There is difference between the actual
amount and the amount mentioned in the FIR. The complainant has a remedy
of filing a suit for recovery. It is further submitted that the applicants have no
criminal past and no custodial interrogation is required in this matter. The
applicants are ready to co-operate with investigation and shall abide by all the
conditions which may be imposed by this Court; hence, prays for
anticipatory bail. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. and another,
(2021) 2 SCC 779 as well as an order passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(Cri.) No.1274/2021 in the case of Manoj Kumar Sood and another vs.
State of Jharkhand dated 19.03.2021 to contend that imposition of
condition to deposit huge amount while granting anticipatory bail virtually
Signature Not Verified
SAN
issued directions in the nature of recovery in a civil suit.
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2021.04.06 11:43:26 IST
2 MCRC-14055-2021
Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel
appearing for the objector have opposed the bail application and prayed for
it's rejection.
Considering the rival contentions of both the parties, it is evident that
factual aspect of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant is
different with the facts of the present case. In the case of Dilip Singh
(supra), the fact was that the applicant therein had entered into an agreement
to sale the agricultural land to the complainant by obtaining 41.00 lacs and the
sale-deed was not executed by the applicant. The apex Court in both the
cases has held that a criminal Court exercising jurisdiction to grant
bail/anticipatory bail is not accepted to act as a recovery agent to realise the
dues of the complainant. It has further held that it is open to the Court to
grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail depending on the facts and
circumstances of a particular case.
Considering the entire material placed on record and the facts and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the matter is still under
investigation and for investigation custodial interrogation seems to be required
in the present case and, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits
of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case in
which discretion of granting anticipatory bail to the applicants may be
exercised.
Accordingly, the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby dismissed.
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2021.04.06 11:43:26 IST
