Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amar Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 MCRC-21301-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-21301-2021
(AMAR KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-05-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Siddharth Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt.Gulab Kali, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
On account of prevailing conditions worldwide brought about by the
COVID-19 virus, the appeal has been heard through video conferencing in
order to maintain social distancing. The necessary parties have effectively
been represented by their respective counsel via video conferencing.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.572/2020 registered at Police Station-Madhotal, District-Jabalpur,
for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
According to case, the applicant is accused of Crime No.572/2020,
registered at Police Station-Madhotal, District-Jabalpur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution story, on the complaint, the police official
raided in the godown under the ownership of Amar Kumar Chaudhary
and found that a truck containing government wheat was unloading by the
labourers. During investigation, it is found that the present applicant and
other co-accused persons, namely, Vijay Kumar, Azam Kha, Amar
Kumar, Vijay Singh Lodhi and Gudda Khan have committed cheating by
delivering the government wheat to Private Godown in place of
Government Fair Price Shop.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer has not arrested the
applicant in view of the compliance of Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. directing
2 MCRC-21301-2021
him to appear before the Court while filing the charge-sheet. Despite
giving intimation, the applicant did not appear before the JMFC, Jabalpur
at the time of filing of charge-sheet by the prosecution, hence, the learned
JMFC has issued the arrest warrant against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been
registered against the applicant whereas the applicant is not involved in
the alleged offences. The wheat has already been obtained by the M.P.
State Civil Supply Corporation on Supurdginama. Intimation regarding
filing of charge-sheet has not been given to applicant. The trial Court has
issued the arrest warrant at the first instance without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the applicant. He has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indar Mohan Goswami
& Ors. V. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2007)12 SCC 1, submitting
that the warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued
without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind due to
the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensure on
issuance of warrants but the trial Court has directly issued the arrest
warrant against the applicant. Besides the above, he argued that the
applicant is proprietor of firm registered under the Food Corporation of
India and the deals in wheat. The sellers of Fair Price Shop where the
wheat alleged to have not been supplied, have not registered their
grievance against the applicant. The police has not recorded the
statement of any witness relating to said shop. Being proprietor of firm,
the applicant himself purchased wheat from the Food Corporation of
India in auction proceeding in the month of March, 2020 and such wheat
was delivered to the applicant. The department where from the wheat
was issued has never alleged that same was not delivered to Fair Price
S h o p . Be s i de s the above, learned Senior counsel argued that
investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed and no purpose
3 MCRC-21301-2021
would be serve to send the applicant behind the bars. An opportunity of
hearing should have been given to the applicant prior to issuance of
arrest warrant. There is no criminal antecedent against the present
applicant. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with
the evidence of prosecution He has also relied upon the judgment and
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court
same are also mentioned hereinunder :-
1. Bharat Choudhary & another vs. State of Bihar &
another, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 77, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
2. Mayank vs. State of M.P., reported in (2014) 2 MPHT
350, passed by this High Court.
3. Rajendra Kori vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C.No.17501/2016,
passed by this High Court.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Per-contra, learned P.L. for respondent/State opposes the bail
application submitting that applicant has committed serious crime and he
is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
Heard.
On perusal of case, it appears that the applicant made as an
accused in the case being proprietor of private godown where the
government wheat was unloading. Charge-sheet has been filed in the case
and the applicant is apprehending his arrest on the reason of his absence
before the trial Court while filing of charge-sheet by the police. During
investigation, the applicant has not been arrested by the police in
compliance of Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. directing the applicant to remain
present before the trial Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet. As per
the prosecution, despite giving notice to the applicant, he did not appear
4 MCRC-21301-2021
before the trial Court and therefore the trial Court has issued arrest
warrant against him. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant
confronted the same relying upon the judgement and orders passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court submitting that at the
first instance, arrest warrant should have not been issued by the learned
trial Court. Summons could be issued against him.
Prima facie, it seems that the arrest of present applicant is not
required to the police for investigating purpose but they may arrest him in
compliance of arrest warrant issued by the trial Court due to non-
presence of the applicant while filing of charge-sheet.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances and submissions raised by
the learned Senior counsel, but without expressing any opinion on merits
o f the case, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
It is directed that Applicant-Amar Kumar Choudhary will
surrender himself before the trial Court within thirty days' from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order and in the event of arrest, he be
released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-
section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
V. JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH
LANDGE
Date: 2021.05.10 14:27:28 IST
