Smt. Anita Arya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 570 MP

   1     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   M.Cr.C. No.10349/2021
              Smt. Anita Arya Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:9/03/2021

       Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for applicant.

       Shri   Ankur    Mody,    Additional    Advocate   General    for

respondent.

This is second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed

for grant of anticipatory bail. The first application was dismissed by

order dated 18/1/2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.1388/2021.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.29/2011 registered at EOW Bhopal, Unit Gwalior for offence

under Sections 109, 409 of IPC and Sections 13 (1)(e), 13 (1)(d), 13

(2), 7 (c)(d) and 13 (1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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

sale deed was executed in the name of the applicant, however, the

said sale deed was challenged in a Civil Suit No.44-A/2010 and by

judgment and decree dated 17/8/2012 passed by Additional District

Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri, the sale deed executed in favour of

the applicant was set aside. It is further submitted that this crucial

fact has not been taken note of by the investigating agency. However,

it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that the appeal

arising out of the aforesaid decree is still pending.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that as

per the sale deed, a consideration amount of Rs.37,25,000/- was paid.

    2     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   M.Cr.C. No.10349/2021
              Smt. Anita Arya Vs. State of M.P.

Even in paragraph 100 of the judgment and decree passed by the trial

court, the Trial Judge had observed as under:-

**izfroknhx.k dh lk{; ls ;g Hkh izekf.kr ugh agqvk gS fd izfroknhx.k us 37]25][email protected]& :i;s dh jkf'k fdl izdkj ls vkSj dgkW ls bdV~~Bh dhA---------------**

It is submitted that in the sale deed it was specifically

mentioned that the consideration amount of Rs.37,25,000/- has been

paid. Since it was not from the legal sources, therefore, the applicant

could not justify her source of income even in the civil suit.

Furthermore, it is submitted that the investigating agency has no

concern with the authenticity of the sale deed, but it is concerned

with the disproportionate assets of the husband of the applicant and it

is the self declaration by the applicant, which is mentioned in the sale

deed that an amount of Rs.37,25,000/- has been paid by way of

consideration and the applicant cannot disown the said admission.

Further, this Court while deciding the first bail application has

already considered the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the

case of P. Nallamal & another Vs. State represented by Inspector

of Police reported in (1999) 6 SCC 559 and, therefore, there is no

change in the circumstance.

In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that

since the applicant is a lady, therefore, a lenient view may be adopted

and she may be granted the anticipatory bail.

3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10349/2021 Smt. Anita Arya Vs. State of M.P.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Corruption is spreading like a cancer in the civilized society. It

has to be handled with firm actions. Although it is the case of the

applicant that according to the judgment passed by the Civil Court,

the sale deed was executed without any consideration, but the

applicant has failed to explain as to why the factum of payment of

Rs.37,25,000/- was mentioned in the sale deed. It is well established

principle of law that the findings given by the Civil Court are not

binding on the Criminal Court. Furthermore, the applicant herself has

preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17/8/2012

passed by the Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri and

the said appeal is still pending. Under these circumstances, this Court

is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of

anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun*

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.03.10 18:23:23 +05'30'