Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratik Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3141 of 2022
Between:-
PRATIK JAIN S/O SHRI PRITAM JAIN , AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR
OF AUTO TECH JABALPUR PRIVATE LIMITED
599 SETH NIHALCHAND COMPLEX
GORAKHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(By Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Siddharth Datt,
learned counsel )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING BHOPAL UNIT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Madhur Shukla, learned Counsel)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438
of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No.27/2019 for offences punishable under Sections
420, 467, 471, 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station-EOW Bhopal, Unit-
Jabalpur (M.P.)
The present application has been moved by the applicant herein who is
apprehending his arrested in the aforesaid case. The undisputed fact of the
case is that the investigation is concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that during the course of
the investigation, the applicant co-operated with the investigation in the
manner required of him.
Learned counsel for the respondent/EOW on the other hand has
Signature Not Verified
SAN
referred to the notices dated 23.07.2019 and 02.08.2019, by which notice
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT
Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:12 IST
under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were issued for the
production of the documents. Learned counsel for the respondent/EWO
submits that the applicant did not personally appear before the Investigation
Agency but has supplied the documents which were required by the
Investigation Agency.
Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand submits that notice
under section 91 of Cr.P.C.is for production of documents or articles, if the
same is complied with without the personal appearance of the accused, it
cannot be said that there is no compliance of section 91 of Cr.P.C. He has
further stated that if personal attendance of the applicant is required by the
EOW for interrogation, then they should have issued a notice under section
160 of Cr.P.C. which they never issued.
Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant had complied with the provisions of section 91 by sending the
documents required by the Investigation Agency.
Be that as it may, as it is undisputed that the charge-sheet has now been
filed by the Investigation Agency and the investigation is concluded, this
Court on the basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021(10)
SCC 773, is allowing the this application subject to condition laid down in
category 'A' of the aforementioned judgment and it is directed that if the
applicant is arrested by the Arresting Officer, he shall be enlarged on bail
upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty
Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer.
The applicant shall appear before the designated Court on the next date
of hearing as may be fixed by the learned Court below.
C.C. as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT
Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:12 IST
(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE
rk.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAVIKANT KEWAT
Date: 2022.02.08 10:37:12 IST
