Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 M.Cr.C. No.30164/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.30164/2021
Jaiprakash Vs. State of MP
Indore, Dated:03.12.2021
Shri. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for applicant.
Shri Yash Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent/E.O.W.
With the consent heard finally.
This is the first application filed by the
applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of
anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.49/2020 registered at Police Station,
E.O.W, Bhopal, Branch Indore for the offences registered under
Section 420, 409, 465,120-B of IPC.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that alleged
incident had taken place on 19/7/2014. The bank lodged
complaint on 7/6/2015. The offence is registered by EOW,
Bhopal only on 15/12/2020. The incriminating material is
already in possession of the prosecution. The case of
prosecution is based on documentary evidence. The applicant
will co-operate with investigation. He will not tamper the
evidence or material. He may be given the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for
respondent/E.O.W. However, he did not dispute that the
incriminating material is already in custody of the prosecution.
The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the
broad factors and parameters for the purpose of deciding an
anticipatory bail. The same are as under:-
"112. (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and
the exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact
as to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of
any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The court
must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which the accused
is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of
the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with
even greater care and caution because over
implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between
two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to
the free, fair and full investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to
the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant
of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as
to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
bail.
113. Arrest should be the last option and it should
be restricted to those exceptional cases where
arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and
circumstances of that case. The court must carefully
examine the entire available record and particularly
the allegations which have been directly attributed to
the accused and these allegations are corroborated
by other material and circumstances on record."
(emphasis supplied)
If present matter is examined on the touchstone of said
judgment it will be clear that; (i) the applicant being a
businessman will not flee from justice (ii) there is nothing to
suggest that applicant can commit similar offence (iii) case is
based on documentary evidence and incriminating material is
already in possession of the prosecution.
Factual backdrop of the present case is not such which
makes arrest as imperative. The applicant has given an
undertaking that he will co-operate with the investigation.
Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to enlarge the
applicant on bail. Hence, this application for grant of
anticipatory bail is allowed.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the applicant
Jaiprakash be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) along with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of arresting officer for his appearance before the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as and
when directed. Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C shall also
apply on the applicant during currency of bail.
c.c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL)
Judge
vm
Digitally signed by
VARGHESE MATHEW
Date: 2021.12.03 15:58:37
-08'00'
