Sohanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 756 MP

                                                        1                            MCRC-5107-2021
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        MCRC-5107-2021
                                    (SOHANLAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 16-03-2021
                            Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.

                            Shri Aditya Gupta, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available today.

This is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime

No.915/2016 registered at Police Station-Gang Betul, District- Betul (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 342, 392, 364-A, 384, 450, 452, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants is that the complainant has not issued any cheque to the applicants and one other co-accused rather applicants came into the house of the complainant and one bag containing some documents snatched from the complainant's son and misused the cheques which is in the name of the complainant by making forged signature of complainant. The accused Sohan and Shailendra by way

of forged and fabricated manner submitted two cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- and 6,00,000/- in the bank by making forged signature of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. It is stated that the applicants went to the house of the complainant to take their money which was given to the complainant but the complainant failed to return money as prayed by the applicant Sohanlal by way of legal notice regarding dishonour of cheque and applicant has also lodged a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Sohanlal has also submitted a report before SP, Betul copy of which is filed as Annexure A/6. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Betul (M.P.), hence there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant are ready to co- Signature Not SAN Verified operate with investigation and shall abide by all the conditions which may be Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2021.03.17 10:47:46 IST 2 MCRC-5107-2021 imposed by this Court; hence, prays for anticipatory bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; (2018) 3 SCC 22.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State and the objector opposes the

bail application and prayed for it's rejection on the ground that serious allegations are levelled against the present applicant.

Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the case diary.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case that as the matter is still under investigation. The allegation against the present applicants are serious in nature and custodial interrogation and obtaining specimen signature for investigation purpose are required in this matter, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case in which discretion of granting anticipatory bail to the applicants may be exercised.

Accordingly, the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

kafeel