Sanjeev Agrawal vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7151 MP

                               1
 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                  M.Cr.C. No.42030 of 2021
              Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.
                             &
                  M.Cr.C. No.41749 of 2021
           Kishor Kumar Sarwate Vs. State of M.P.

Indore, Dated:- 09/11/2021

     Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, Counsel for the applicant - Sanjeev

Agrawal (M.Cr.C. No.42030/2021).

     Shri Vivek Singh, Counsel for the applicant - Kishor

Kumar Sarwate (M.Cr.C. No.41749/2021).

     Ms. Archana Kher, Deputy Advocate General for the

respondent/State.

They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

Both these applications have arisen out of the same crime

number of the same police station and, therefore, they are heard

analogously and are being decided by this common order.

These are applicants' first applications under Section 438

of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail.

They are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime

No.01/2020 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing,

Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420,

120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

Counsels for the applicants have submitted that the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.42030 of 2021 Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.

& M.Cr.C. No.41749 of 2021 Kishor Kumar Sarwate Vs. State of M.P.

applicant - Sanjeev Agrawal is the Senior Manager, Bank of

Baroda, Branch Burhanpur, whereas the applicant Kishor Kumar

Sarwate is the Ex-Manager of the Bank of Baroda of the same

branch.

Counsels have submitted that the charge-sheet in the

present case has already been filed and the applicants were never

arrested during the course of investigation and they have also

cooperated in the investigation and thus, the applicants are

apprehending their arrest on their appearance before the trial

Court. Counsels have also submitted that since the applicants

were not arrested during the course of investigation and

participated in the same, therefore, there is no urgency or

requirement to arrest them in the same offence at the time of

filing the charge-sheet. Counsels have also placed reliance on a

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. Through Director passed in

Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021 decided on 02.09.2021.

Relevant paras of the same reads as under:-

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.42030 of 2021 Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.

& M.Cr.C. No.41749 of 2021 Kishor Kumar Sarwate Vs. State of M.P.

"The given factual scenario completely fits the aforesaid as the appellant was never taken into custody during investigation. Suffice to say that it would be a fit case for the trial Court to grant bail to the appellant on the next date on terms and conditions to its satisfaction. As a measure of precaution, largely arising from the manner of submission of public prosecutor before the trial Court, it is made clear that the interim protection granted by this Court would continue till the appropriate order is passed by the trial Court. In order to prevent situations of the kind which have arisen and repeatedly arise, it may be appropriate for the High Courts to circulate the judgments passed in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(supra) and passed today to the trial Courts as the problem appear to be endemic. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

Counsels have also relied upon another decision rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth Vs. The

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal

No.838 of 2021 decided on 16.08.2021, relevant paras reads as

under:-

"In the present case when the appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the charge sheet is taken on record. We may note that learned counsel for the appellant has already stated before us that on summons being

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.42030 of 2021 Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.

& M.Cr.C. No.41749 of 2021 Kishor Kumar Sarwate Vs. State of M.P.

issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court.

We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in terms aforesaid leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

Thus, it is submitted that the applicants be released on

anticipatory bail as their arrest in the present case would

seriously prejudice their reputation as no other case is registered

against them.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has not

disputed the legal position and has submitted that appropriate

orders may be passed.

On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the

case-diary including the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as aforesaid, this Court finds force with the

contentions raised by the Counsels for the applicants and thus,

considering the fact that the applicants were not arrested during

the course of investigation and cooperated with the authority, in

such circumstances, their custodial interrogation do not appear

necessary. Accordingly, without adverting to the merits of the

case, both the applications are allowed.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.42030 of 2021 Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. State of M.P.

& M.Cr.C. No.41749 of 2021 Kishor Kumar Sarwate Vs. State of M.P.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Sanjeev

Agrawal and Kishor Kumar Sarwate shall be released on bail,

upon their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

(rupees twenty five thousand) each and furnishing separate

solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

The applicants shall make themselves available for

interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required.

Applicants shall further abide by the other conditions

enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case Nos.42030 and

41749 of 2021 are allowed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2021.11.09 18:13:51 +05'30'