Neeraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5315 MP

                                    M.Cr.C. No.42154/2021                                             1




                                      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH

                                                            M.Cr.C. No.42154/2021
                                                  (Neeraj Singh & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)

                                    Indore, Dated: 13/09/2021
                                          Shri Harshwardhan Sharma, learned counsel for the
                                    applicants.
                                          Shri Avadesh Polekar, learned Public Prosecutor for the
                                    respondent/State.

Shri Imran Qureshi, learned counsel for the objector. They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

This is the second bail application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of bail during the trial.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.51/2021, registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 506/34, 498-A of IPC, 1860 and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Earlier application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.30885/2021 has already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31/07/2021 with the following directions:

"In such circumstance, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.30885/2021 is hereby dismissed with liberty to the applicants to file an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure afresh before the Judge by whom their earlier application u/s.438 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed which shall be decided by the learned Judge of the lower Court, in accordance with the law, by a reasoned and speaking order. without being influenced by the order passed by this Court in the present application."

Allegation against the applicants is one of cruelty under Section 498(A) of IPC.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid offence as arrest warrants have already been issued against them on 08/04/2021 as the applicants could not mark their presence before the lower Court on the same date despite intimation to them that the charge sheet is being filed.

Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2021.09.14 18:16:20 +05'30'

Their earlier application for anticipatory bail before the trail Court has been dismissed vide order dated 03/04/2021(Annexure-A/1) observing that as the applicants have not appeared before the Court despite notice. Against the aforesaid order, earlier bail application M.Cr.C.No.30885/2021 has been filed by the applicants, which was disposed of as aforesaid on 31/07/2021.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, as all of the other applicants are family members of the applicant no.1. Nirmala Singh, aged about 70 years, the applicant no.2 is the mother of the applicant no.1; Pankaj Singh, applicant no.3 is brother of applicant no.1; Jyoti Singh, applicant no.4 is the sister- in-law of the applicant no.1 and another accused who is not the applicant is Geeta Singh who is the sister of the applicant no.1. It is also submitted that the marriage of the applicant no.1 and the complainant took place on 22/06/2017 and they also have a son out of this wedlock, however, on account of certain dispute, the complainant wife left the applicant along with their son and came to Indore from Rewa. Subsequently, the applicant no.1 filed an complaint to meet his son before S.H.O., M.G. Road, Indore on 31/01/2021 whereas the identical complaint was filed on 11/02/2021 before S.H.O, Police Station Rewa, for the purpose of meeting his son Atharwa Singh. Apart from the aforesaid complaints, the applicant no.1 also filed an application on 09/02/2021 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights bearing RCS HM NO.19/2021 in the Court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Rewa and soon thereafter, the complainant, who is also employed in the District Court Indore, has lodged the FIR on 15/03/2021 regarding which a notice (Annexure A/9) was issued against the applicants

Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2021.09.14 18:17:23 +05'30'

on 15/03/2021. Thereafter, the applicants came to Indore and also submitted their objections before I.G Office on 30/03/2021 along with relevant documents but instead of taking further action in respect of applicants' objections, straightaway the charge sheet has been filed before the lower court.

It is further submitted that although the learned Judge of the trial Court has held that the applicants were issued notice regarding the same, however, the applicants did not receive any notice and even otherwise there is no reason for them to remain absent. Counsel also submitted that the applicants were not arrested during the course of trial and they had no intimation regarding the charge sheet being filed hence the applicants including the applicant no.2 who is the 70 years old mother of the applicant no.1 did not appear before the trial Court and there was no other reason for them to remain absent on the fixed date.

Learned counsel, in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment dated 02/09/2021, passed by Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director (Criminal Appeal No.929/2021), as also the another decision of the same court dated 16/08/2021 in the case of Siddharth vs. State of U.P. & Anr (Cr.A. No.838/2021) to submit that when the accused persons are not arrested during the course of investigation, their arrest at the time of filing of the charge sheet is not required.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand, opposed the prayer.

Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the prayer and submitted that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicants. So far as the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra) is concerned, it is distinguishable on facts as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in respect of economic offences.

Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2021.09.14 18:19:28 +05'30'

On due consideration of rival submissions and on perusal of record, this Court finds force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants. So far as the latest decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the relevant paragraphs read as under:

"Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.

If we may say, the observation hereinabove would supplement our observations made in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(supra) and must be read together with that judgment.

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."

(emphasis supplied) It is apparent from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that if the accused persons are not arrested during the course

Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2021.09.14 18:20:20 +05'30'

of investigation by the investigating officer, this in itself is sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. In the present case, although the contention of the respondent is that the applicants did not appear before the trial Court despite intimation, however, considering the fact that applicants have also filed an application for anticipatory bail immediately thereafter and considering the nature of the allegations against them, this Court is of the view that the lower Court ought to have allowed the bail application as charge sheet has been filed and the applicants have not been arrested during the course of investigation.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicants is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail, upon their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each and furnishing solvent surety each 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. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.

A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this court for proper compliance of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra).

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR ) JUDGE sumathi

Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2021.09.14 18:20:42 +05'30'