Mohan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5662 MP

                                                          1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 19th OF APRIL, 2022

                                      MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16916 of 2022

                              Between:-
                      1.      MOHAN S/O BHAGWANDAS RAJAK , AGED ABOUT
                              40   YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPAR R/O
                              VILLAGE-AMARMAU, P.S. SHAHGARH, DISTRICT
                              SAGAR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.      BABULAL S/O BHAGWANDAS RAJAK , AGED
                              ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER R/O
                              VILLAGE BADAGON DHASAN, P.S. BADAGAON
                              DHASAN,    DISTRICT-TIKAMGARH     (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      3.      DINESH S/O BHAGWANDAS RAJAK , AGED ABOUT
                              30   YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER R/O
                              VILLAGE BADAGON DHASAN, P.S. BADAGAON
                              DHASAN,    DISTRICT-TIKAMGARH    (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      4.      HARPAL S/O SUKHNANDAN RAJAK , AGED ABOUT
                              26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE-
                              AMARMAU, P.S. SHAHGARH, DISTRICT SAGAR
                              (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                              (BY SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SAXENA, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                              POLICE STATION BADAGAON DHASAN DISTRICT
                              TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI PRAMOD SAXENA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                            This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                           ORDER

This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.28/2022 registered at Police Station Badagaon Dhasan, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 294, 323, 452, 506/34, 458, 143, Signature SAN Not 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Verified

Digitally signed by After issuance of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., applicants have not APARNA TIWARI Date: 2022.04.20 12:51:27 IST

been arrested and charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, it is evident that Investigating Officer had no intention of arresting the applicants, and therefore, this case can be disposed of in the light of law laid down in the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and Others in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5191/2021 decided on 7.10.2021 directed the applicant to appear before the trial Court upon filing of the charge sheet and to move application for bail and the trial Court shall consider such application in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra).

On going through the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), it is apparent that the applicant has been charged for the offence punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less not falling in category B&D. It is held that if applicant is not arrested during investigation and has cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever called then after filing of charge sheet/complaint, following courses should be adopted, namely, (a) ordinary summons at the first instance/including permitting appearance through lawyer; (b) if such an accused does not appear despite service of summons then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued; (c) Non- bailable warrant on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant; (d) non- bailable warrant may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the applicant before execution of the non-bailable warrant on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date(s) of hearing; and

(e) bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

I n the same terms, the present anticipatory application is disposed of directing the applicants to appear before the trial Court and move bail application which trial Court shall consider in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others (supra).

In above terms, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AT