Aman Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12648 MP

                                                             1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                                 ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17946 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           AMAN SINGH S/O SABHARAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26
                           YEAR S , OCCUPATION: GOVT SEVAK, R/O KAILASH
                           NAGAR, COLLECTRATE ROAD, CITY CENTER,
                           GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI SHUBHENDU SINGH CHAUHAN- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                           THROUGH POLICE THANA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT
                           GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (MS. ANKITA MATHUR- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE AND
                           SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT [COMP].)

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

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.133 of 2023 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

Allegation against the present applicant/accused is that he by deceiving the complainant to execute the agreement to sale, got a registered sale deed in his favour on much lessor amount than the actual amount. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 08-08-2023 10:08:38 AM

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that this case is of civil nature and has wrongly been given the colour of criminal case. Further argument is that the complainant is not an uneducated person who may sign the sale-deed believing it to be an agreement to sale. It is further argued that the documents annexed with the bail application vide Annexure P/5, the value of disputed property is mentioned as Rs.42,62,891/- at the time of registration. Therefore, the argument of complainant is not acceptable that the value of property is more than Rs. One crore. Hence, the forgery or cheating has not been committed. The applicant has already transferred an amount of Rs.16 lakhs in the account

of complainant as well as Rs.17,3000/- has been handed over in cash. It is further argued that the copy of cheque alleged to have been stolen by applicant is annexed by the complainant, therefore, the version in FIR that the same was stolen by applicant, prima-facie, appears to be false.

Further argument is that so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant/accused is concerned, the FIR was lodged by one Bhavna Tiwari against the applicant/accused which was the counterblast of FIR lodged by the applicant/accused against Bhavana Tiwari. In Crime No.140/2023 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior (M.P.), the applicant/accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in M.Cr.C.No.30982/2023 on 18/07/2023. Applicant is permanent resident of District Gwalior (M.P.) and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation and shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court; therefore, he

Signature Not Verified prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 08-08-2023 10:08:38 AM

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the ground taken for anticipatory bail are false. It is further argued that the applicant is habitual offender and earlier he has already committed the same type of offences, therefore, in view of gravity of offence, the applicant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of present bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.

For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] are enumerated below:-

"7.1. From a plain reading of the provision u/S.41 Cr.P.C., it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 08-08-2023 10:08:38 AM

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required ? What purpose it will serve ? What object it will achieve ? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by subclauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C.

9. Another provision i.e. Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on the accused requires to be vitalized. This provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1)Cr.P.C., the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.P.C. has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by he Magistrate as aforesaid."

Signature Not Verified Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 08-08-2023 10:08:38 AM

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.

The applicant is directed to cooperate in investigation. In case of failure to cooperate, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected automatically.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3 . The applicant/s will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4 . The applicant/s shall not involve any other offence, in case the applicant/s indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled.

5. The applicant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant/s will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 08-08-2023 10:08:38 AM

Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.

E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.

Application stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 08-08-2023 10:08:38 AM