Omveer Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5210 MP

                                 1



          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.44395/2021
           (Omveer Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior, Dated:08.09.2021

      Shri Harshit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Shri Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel for complainant.

The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.438,

Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in

respect of registration of Complaint Case at R.C.T. No.676/2021

pending before learned JMFC, Ambah, District Morena in

relation to the offence punishable under Sections 465, 474, 120-B

of IPC.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that

applicant is a former Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rajoda and is

apprehending his arrest on the basis of issuance of arrest warrant

in the private complaint at the instance of respondent

No.2/complainant for alleged offence under Sections 465, 474,

120-B of IPC. Counsel for the applicant at the outset specifically

submits that offence under Sections 465 and 474 of IPC are

bailable in nature and therefore, issuance of arrest warrant is

illegal. Right course would have been the issuance of summons.

He relied upon the Judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Inder

Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in ((2008) 1

SCC (Cri) 259) and recently in case of Aman Preet Singh Vs.

C.B.I. through Director passed in CRA.No.929/2021 on

02.09.2021. Learned counsel fairly submitted on behalf of

applicant that he is ready to cooperate in investigation and is also

ready to submit all relevant documents which are in his

possession for fair investigation including register as sought by

the authorities. Applicant does not bear any tainted criminal

background except one or two cases of minor nature.

Confinement may bring social disrepute and personal and

professional inconvenience. On these grounds, he prays for

anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the

prayer and prayed for dismissal.

Leaned counsel for the complainant also opposed the

prayer and submitted that applicant was instrumental in causing

removal of his wife from the government job in Panchayat by

forging documents. However, he fairly submits that offence under

Sections 465 and 474 of IPC are bailable in nature.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

considered the arguments advanced by them through case diary.

Considering the submissions and the facts that offence

under Sections 465 and 474 of IPC are bailable in nature as well

as the undertaking given by the counsel for the applicant on

behalf of applicant that he shall cooperate in investigation and

would make available all relevant documents before the

Investigating Officer therefore, I deem it appropriate to allow this

application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and it is hereby directed

that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail

on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to

the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Investigating Agency.

It is made clear that in case of any alteration of offence,

this order shall lose its efficacy as per law.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of

the following conditions by the applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions

of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as

the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such

facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the

offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant shall regular appear in the trial Court and

shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and;

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous

permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case

may be.

7. Applicant shall cooperate in investigation and trial and

would himself available as and when required by the concerned

authority.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for

compliance, if possible, from the office of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules/directions.

                                                             (Anand Pathak)
 Ashish*                                                        Judge
ASHISH
CHAURASI
A
2021.09.0
9 11:27:14
+05'30'