Mukesh Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2019 MP

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

                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3142 of 2022

                               Between:-
                               MUKESH RAI S/O SHRI MAHESH RAI , AGED
                               ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS VEER
                               SAWARKAR WARD, BINA DISTRICT SAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI MANISH DATT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE )

                               AND

                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               POLICE STATION BINA SAGAR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SHRI PRAMOD SAXENA, G.A FOR STATE.)
                                              (Heard through Video Conferencing)
                             This application coming on for admission 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 who is apprehending his arrest in connection with case Crime No.72/2021 registered at Police Station Bina, District Sagar (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 339(C) of the Municipalities Acts, 1961.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that piece of land has been colonized, which is not within the municipality area, therefore, section 339(C) of the Municipalities Act, 1961 will not be applicable. It is further submitted that coordinate Bench of this Court has extended benefit of anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C No. 2951/2022 vide order dated 19/01/2022. Applicant has also received notice under section 14-A of Cr.P.C and is cooperating with the investigation.

Learned Government Advocate admits that the land on which colonization is carried out is not within the municipal limit of Bina Municipalities but is adjacent to it.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Taking into consideration aforesaid submission and also taking into Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE consideration the fact that after issuance of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., Date: 2022.02.14 18:44:28 IST

applicant has not been arrested, therefore, it is evident that Investigating Officer has 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 applicant 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 tarun