Hashad Rinayat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8460 MP

                                    1                            MCRC-38534-2021
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC No. 38534 of 2021
                   (HASHAD RINAYAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 08-12-2021
         Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Nishank Pal

Verma, Advocate for the applicant.
         Shri Y. D. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /

State.

Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the objector.

IA No.21606/2021 filed under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the public prosecutor is allowed.

Heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant / accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.647/2021 registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur (MP) for the offence under Sections 306, 34 of I.P.C.

According to prosecution case, on 23.06.2021 the deceased Naman @ Kushal Lunawat committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance

on account of harassment and torture given by the applicant and other co- accused persons.

Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The deceased was having illicit liaison with another lady namely Karishma @ Mendi and his obscene activities had come to the knowledge all relatives. There is no specific allegation against the applicant that at any point of time, the deceased was instigated or provoked by him for committing suicide, therefore, the essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 306 of the IPC are completely missing in the present case. It is further submitted that present applicant is the friend of wife of the deceased namely Namrata. Both have studied in one school since class-8th and co-accused Harshad Rinayat was the photographer, who has catch the emotional moments of marriage of 2 MCRC-38534-2021 Namrata. Harshad and Namrata are not having any illicit relationship. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on the judgments passed in the case of Ude Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC and 2021(2) SCC

427 and 2014(2) SCC 171. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. There is no possibility of applicant' absconding or tempering with the evidence. Under these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned Govt. Advocate vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

O n the other hand, learned counsel for the objector submits that the present case is not maintainable. The property of the applicant has been attached promulgate and entire publication has been made. The applicant has been declared as proclaimed offender and price has been made. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 955, wherein it has been observed that if the proceedings under sections 82 -83 has been initiated, then anticipatory bail cannot be granted. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 and the order passed by the Indore Bench in the case of Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4730/2021 on 07.07.2021, wherein it has been observed that if the accused is “absconding†and declared as a "€œproclaimed offender"€ÂÂ, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. Learned JMFC has passed a final order on 17.11.2021 and warrant was issued against the applicant. The Supreme Court has observed in many cases that anticipatory bail cannot be considered on merits of the case, if the proceedings under section 82 has been initiated against the accused persons. Hence, the present application is not maintainable and applicant may 3 MCRC-38534-2021 not be granted anticipatory bail.

Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record as well as the case laws, this court finds much force on the contentions / points raised by learned counsel for the objector. This court is of the view that this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable because against the applicants, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has already been initiated. Since, it has not been challenged, it has already attained the finality and as such the correctness of the same cannot be gone into in this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the applicant shall

be at liberty to surrender before the trial Court and if he surrenders before the trial Court and move an appropriate application then the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

JP

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2021.12.09 17:18:39 IST