Sunil Laddha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 653 MP

M.Cr.C. No.13028/2021                                                    1



   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

                        M.Cr.C. No.13028/2021
       Sunil Laddha & Another v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh
Indore, dated 12.03.2021
        Shri Mitesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.
        Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent / State.

With the consent, finally heard.

This is the second application filed by the applicants / accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.24/2020 registered at Police Station - GRP Line, District - Indore for the offences registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The previous application, M.Cr.C. No.45468/2020 was dismissed on 19.11.2020 because it was arising out of an order of trial Court declining anticipatory bail at a time when even crime was not registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for all practical purposes, this is first anticipatory bail application before this Court. The Court below erred in declining anticipatory bail by order dated 27.02.2021.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per prosecution story, deceased - Kailash committed suicide by leaving a suicide note wherein name of present applicants is mentioned. Reason assigned for suicide is non-payment of painting work by present applicants. By placing reliance on work

agreement dated 01.08.2020 (Annexure-A/4), it is submitted that the said agreement was entered into between deceased - Kailash and Society through its President. The applicants are not the President of Society. Indeed he is holding the post of Treasurer which is clear from the letterhead of the Society (Annexure-A/3). As per this agreement, which was entered into on 01.08.2020, the entire work was required to be completed within five months. The deceased - Kailash committed suicide on 22.10.2020 i.e., much before completion of five months. The applicants have been falsely implicated. Merely because their names were their in the suicide note, it cannot be said that necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 of the IPC are satisfied.

Reliance has been placed on Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v/s The State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427, Chitresh Kumar Chopra v/s State (Goverment of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, Sanju @ Sajay Singh Sengar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, Gangula Mohan Reddy v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, M. Mohan v/s The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, Ramesh Kumar v/s The State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, The State of Punjab v/s Iqbal Singh & Others reported in (1991) 3 SCC 1, Devendra & Others v/s The State of U.P. & Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495, Devendra Singh v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (3) MPHT 247, Dilawar Balu Kurane v/s The

State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and Deepak v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1994 CrLJ 767.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the anticipatory bail application on twin grounds. Firstly, the suicide note is a named one which is pregnant with applicants' name and secondly, deceased's wife in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that because of non-payment of dues to her husband by the present applicants, he committed suicide.

The Apex Court in (2011) 1 SCC 694, (Siddharam Sadingappa Mehtre v/s The State of Maharashtra) laid down following parameters for grant of anticipatory bail:-

112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(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 overimplication 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:

Considering the nature of accusation, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. There is no material on record to suggest that applicants will either flee from justice or commit similar offence. Thus, in case of this nature in my view, necessary parameters for grant of anticipatory bail have been satisfied. As per paragraph - 113 of the aforesaid judgment, sending a person to the jail is last resort.

Considering the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the applicant No.1 - Sunil Laddha S/o Shri Laxmilal Laddha and applicant No.2 - Balkrishna Gulati S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Gulati be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for their appearance before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as and when directed. Conditions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall also apply on the applicants during currency of bail.

With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash Date: 2021.03.12 17:26:47 +05'30'