Alok Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8762 MP

                              1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     MCRC-61279-2021
              Alok Pratap Singh Vs. State of MP

Gwalior, Dated : 14-12-2021

      Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.

      Case diary is available.

      This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed for grant of anticipatory bail. Earlier the applicant was granted

bail by coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 09.06.2021 and

as the Hon'ble Judge has been transferred, therefore, the present case

has been listed before this Court.

      The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.20/2019 registered at Police Station Daboh Distt. Bhind for

offence under Sections 420 of IPC and subsequently added Sections

467, 468, 506, 34 and 201 of IPC.

      It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that earlier by

order dated 09.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.27456/2021, a

coordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail, but now the police

wants to arrest him on the ground that offences under Sections 467,

468, 506, 201/34 of IPC have been added. It is submitted that once

the bail has already been granted after considering the allegations

made against the accused, then the applicant cannot be arrested

unless and until there is any additional material collected by the

Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the
                               2
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     MCRC-61279-2021
              Alok Pratap Singh Vs. State of MP

Investigating Officer must obtain the permission from the Court to

arrest the applicant as held by the Supreme Court in the case of

Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in

(2019) 17 SCC 326.

      Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that

on the pretext of providing government job, the applicant had cheated

various innocent victims and an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was

collected from each of the complainant.

      Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

      This Court has gone through the order dated 09.06.2021 passed

in M.Cr.C. No.27456/2021 and from the facts mentioned in the said

order, it is clear that the allegations at the relevant time were only of

cheating the innocent persons by collecting Rs.5,50,000/- each from

three persons in lieu of getting a job in Railway, but neither the

complainant got the job nor the money was returned. However, it

appears that at the relevant time, forged letter of appointment given

by the applicant was not collected by the police. It is submitted by the

counsel for the State that on 15.06.2021, i.e., after grant of bail, the

police seized forged appointment order given by the applicant and

thus, the offences under Sections 467, 468, 506 (Part-II), 201/34 of

IPC were added. It is submitted that since certain additional
                                  3
            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MCRC-61279-2021
                 Alok Pratap Singh Vs. State of MP

evidences have been collected against the applicant, therefore, it is

incorrect to say that the applicant was granted bail after considering

the entire allegations.

      Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties.

      The coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the

applicant on 09.06.2021, whereas the police seized the forged copy

of the appointment order given by the applicant on 15.06.2021. Thus,

it is clear that the forged appointment order was not available in the

case diary and thus, the said fact was not taken into consideration at

the time of grant of bail by order dated 09.06.2021.

      So far as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case

of Pradeep Ram (Supra) is concerned, it is held that once an

accused is granted bail and if certain offences are added, then it is not

necessary that the bail granted to the applicant should be cancelled.

      Paragraph 29 of the judgment passed in the case of Pradeep

Ram (Supra) reads as under:-

                  "29. Relying on the abovesaid order, the
           learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
           respondent State ought to get first the order dated 10-

3-2016 [Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 3254] granting bail to the appellant cancelled before seeking custody of the appellant. It may be true that by mere addition of an offence in a criminal case, in which the accused is bailed out, investigating authorities itself may not proceed to arrest the accused and need to obtain an order from the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-61279-2021 Alok Pratap Singh Vs. State of MP

court, which has released the accused on the bail. It is also open for the accused, who is already on bail and with regard to whom serious offences have been added to apply for bail in respect of new offences added and the court after applying the mind may either refuse the bail or grant the bail with regard to new offences. In a case, bail application of the accused for newly added offences is rejected, the accused can very well be arrested. In all cases, where the accused is bailed out under orders of the court and new offences are added including offences of serious nature, it is not necessary that in all cases earlier bail should be cancelled by the court before granting permission to arrest an accused on the basis of new offences. The powers under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are wide powers granted to the court by the legislature under which the court can permit an accused to be arrested and commit him to custody without even cancelling the bail with regard to earlier offences. Sections 437(5) and 439(2) cannot be read into restricted manner that order for arresting the accused and to commit him to custody can only be passed by the court after cancelling the earlier bail."

Thus, it is clear that if an accused is already on bail and if any

serious offences are added then, he can apply for bail in respect of

new offences and if the Court after applying the mind refuses to grant

bail, then the accused can very well be arrested.

Accordingly, in view of the seizure of the forged appointment

order given by the applicant, no case is made out for grant of bail.

However, the prosecution is directed to apply directions given by the

Supreme Court in paragraph 31 of the judgment passed in the case of

Pradeep Ram (Supra).

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2021.12.15 10:41:33 +05'30'