Ramswroop Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3672 MP

                                                                               1                           MCRC-35899-2021
                                                      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                                MCRC-35899-2021

(RAMSWROOP SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Indore, Dated : 28-07-2021 Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri D.S. Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for Non-applicant/State. Perused the case diary.

This is the first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by the

applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No.787/2021, registered at police station Banganga, Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406/34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a practicing lawyer solely dependent on his legal practice. Applicant has been falsely implicated. The land in question was owned by one Balakdas who gave it through a power of attorney to Mahavir. From Mahavir, it is transferred in favour of Anita through another power of attorney. Anita, in turn, gave power

of attorney to present applicant. The applicant on the strength of said document sold the land in question to complainant on 18.10.2011. After almost a decade, complainant preferred a representation before DIG Police, Indore, which resulted into lodging of FIR. This is a civil dispute. Nobody filed any suit assailing the validity of sale deed. In a civil dispute, applicant has been falsely arraigned, applicant will cooperate/participate in investigation and will not temper the evidence or material. He may be given benefit of anticipatory bail.

The bail is opposed by Shri D.S. Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer by contending that Anita gave power of attorney to the applicant on 20.10.2011 whereas, sale deed was executed on 18.10.2011. Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SHAILESH The Apex Court laid down the basic parameter for consideration of an MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2021.07.28 17:51:00 IST 2 MCRC-35899-2021 application for grant of anticipatory bail in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694. Para 112 and 113 of the said judgment reads 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 grater 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;

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2021.07.28 17:51:00 IST 3 MCRC-35899-2021

(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.

11 3 . 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." If present case is tested on the anvil of the principles laid down in the said case, it will be clear that the applicant being a practicing lawyer will not be able to flee from justice or abscond. No past criminal record of applicant is shown to this Court. There exists no material to suggest that applicant will influence the material/witnesses. More so, when case of prosecution is based mainly on documentary evidence and incriminating documentary material is already in possession of the prosecution, it cannot be said that sending the applicant to custody is the only option left.

Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail by directing him to immediately join the investigation and ensure that he does not influence the material or evidence, failing which it can be a reason to cancel the anticipatory bail. Hence, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN SHAILESH Accordingly, in the even of arrest, applicant (Ramswroop Sahu) be MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2021.07.28 17:51:00 IST 4 MCRC-35899-2021 released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) along with one solvent 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

SS/-

Signature Not Verified
              VerifiedDigitally
                       Digitally signed by
  SAN                  SHAILESH
                       MAHADEV
                       SUKHDEVE
                       Date: 2021.07.28
                       17:51:00 IST