Rajendra Chharra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1975 MP

                                                                         1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                                       BEFORE
                                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                             ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                                      MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6338 of 2022

                                             Between:-
                                             RAJENDRA CHHARRA S/O RANGLALA CHHARRA ,
                                             AGED    ABOUT    52   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                             BUSINESSMAN PLOT NO.74-B, MAIN ROAD,
                                             VERMA LAYOUT AMBAJHIRI, SHANKAR NAGAR
                                             DIST.NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                             (BY SHRI RAHUL KUMAR TRIPATHI, ADVOCATE )

                                             AND

                                             THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                             P.S.PANDHURNA P.S.PANDHURNA (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                                             (BY SHRI AMIT BHURRAK, PANEL LAWYER )
                                                            (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                                          This Application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                    following:
                                                                          ORDER

This is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C filed by the

applicant.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.13/2022 registered at Police Station Pandhurna, District Chhindwara (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 166-A(b), 169, 217, 120-B, 406, 411 & 116 of Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted that allegation against present applicant Rajendra Chharra is that he has purchased a vehicle after entering into an agreement with co-accused Jitendra Yadav who happens to be an Investigating Officer of Crime No.6/21 at police station Pandhurna. It is alleged that initially other co-accused Jitendra Yadav has not shown the seizure the vehicle Scorpio and subsequently has used the vehicle for his personal purposes and, thereafter, when a complaint was made, the vehicle was taken into police custody on an order passed by the trial Court. It is Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.15 11:03:33 IST submitted that thereafter, an agreement was entered into between co-accused

Jitendra Yadav and the present applicant with respect of purchase of the vehicle and present applicant Rajendra Chharra being a dummy purchaser of the vehicle in question had purchased the vehicle. Subsequently, when the fact came to his notice that there is some problem in purchasing the vehicle, owing to registration of

some criminal case, he has returned the vehicle. But the fact remains that he was a purchaser of the vehicle in pursuance agreement entered into between the Investigation officer and himself.

It is argued that punishment for the offences which are registered against the applicant is maximum of three years and, therefore, the benefit of grant of anticipatory bail should be extended in the light of judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. The applicant is the first offender and is ready of abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering this anticipatory bail application.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application stating that serious offence has been committed by co-accused Jitendra Yadav, Investigating Officer as well as present applicant Rajendra Chharra. It is pointed out that investigation is still pending in the matter, therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. As far as applicability of judgment in the case Arnesh Kumar (supra) is concerned, it is submitted that it does not have an universal application and it is applied only in those cases in which facts and circumstances of that case permits so. In the present case, co-accused Investigating Officer, Jitendra Yadav earlier had not seized the vehicle which was used in commission of offence and thereafter used it for his personal purpose and when the fact was brought to the notice of learned trial Court, he has again entered into an agreement with present applicant Rajendra Chharra and making him a dummy purchaser got sold the vehicle in his name. It is a serious offence by creating conspiracy in the matter, therefore, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and looking to

Signature Not Verified seriousness of the offence being committed by an Investigating Officer with the SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR help of present applicant Rajendra Chharra, this Court does not deem it JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.15 11:03:33 IST

appropriate to even extend the benefit of grant anticipatory bail in the light of

Arnesh Kumar (supra) to the present applicant at this stage. The application is hereby rejected.

The applicant is directed to surrender and apply for regular bail.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2022.02.15 11:03:33 IST