Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Neema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36414 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
HEMANT NEEMA S/O LATE SHRI GOPALDAS NEEMA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 45
KESAR BAGH ROAD, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA
DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SHRI GHAN SHYAM
YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C in crime no.517/2023 registered at police station Lasudiya, Indore under
section 384, 451, 294, 506, 34 of IPC.
2. As per prosecution case, on 12.04.2023 present applicant came to the
office of the company of the complainant Vijay Jaiswani alongwith his three
friends. Office boy Rahul tried to stop him on the gate but he did not stop and
entered unauthorizedly into the office of company of complainant and
misbehaved and abused with him. When, complainant tried to stop abusing him
him, applicant told him that why you are not giving business to my company
and if you don't give business to my company, Iwill kill you and so kidnap
Tarun Jaiswani nephew of complainant. Applicant also give life threat to Sanjay
Jaiswani elder brother of complainant. Due to said incident the staff and
employees of the company become scared and the atmosphere fear spread in
the company. Almost after 9 days i.e. on 21/04/2023 complainant reported said
incident to the police station Lasudiya. On the basis of the report of the
complainant police station lasudiya has lodged FIR No.517/2023 under sections
517, 384, 451, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
3. During the investigation, it was stated by the complainant and
witnesses that the accused entered in the objector's office with other persons
with gun in his hand. When he was asked not to pose the gun, he stated why
you are not giving business to my company. If business is not given then he will
kill him and get his nephew Tarun kidnapped and will kill him and his elder
brother Sanjay. After that the police added offence under section 452 of IPC
and 25-A of Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It was not alleged that the applicant was
having any gun but later the same was exaggerated and offence under section
452 of IPC and 25-A of Arms Act have been added. It is also argued there was
a business transaction between the applicant and the respondent no.2. He also
referred the order of MSME dated 18.08.2023. It is submitted that the FIR was
lodged after nine days of the incident.
5. Those offences have been added in order to avoid the compliance of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State
of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/state and objector opposed the
prayer for grant of bail on the ground that as per the CCTV footage, it is
evident that the applicant was having gun alongwith him when he forcibly
entered into the office. The applicant is a habitual offender and against him one
criminal case of crime no.83/2020 was registered for commission of offence
under section 302, 201, 365, 343, 34, 377 of IPC and 67, 37-A of IT Act.
Another criminal case, crime no.451/2023 is registered at police station
Chandan Nagar for commission of offence under section 294, 506, 507 of IPC.
It is also argued that the applicant has been granted bail by the Apex Court
considering the custodial period and delay in the trial. However, after the grant
of bail by the Apex Court, he committed three criminal cases. In the present
case, he has been declared absconder and the proceedings under section 82 of
Cr.P.C have been issued by the trial Court.
7. Since, the applicant is absconder and the proceedings under section
82 of Cr.P.C has been taken against him, he cannot claim anticipatory bail in
view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Dharamraj in reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1085.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the allegation in the present case that the applicant alongwith other
co-accused persons had forcibly entered into the office of the complainant
alongwith gun and threatened him to kill and kidnap his nephew. He has given
life threat to elder brother of the complainant. It is not in dispute that against the
applicant criminal cases are registered and even after grant of bail by the Apex
Court, three criminal cases have been registered against him.
9. Apart from that, the applicant has been declared absconder and
proceedings under section 82 of Cr.P.C have been taken up against him. The
Apex Court in the case of Dharamraj (supra) held that a proclaimed offence
would not be entitled for anticipatory bail. Only in exceptional and rare cases,
the application for anticipatory bail can be considered. The same view has been
taken by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Tusshar Ashok Vs.
State of MP in M.Cr.C No.41402/2023 dated 12.10.2023. There is no merit in
the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the report has been
lodged after passing of the order by MSME case. The order was passed on
18.08.2023 whereas, the date of incident in the present case is April, 2023 and
the FIR was lodged prior to passing of the order by MSME.
11. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case for grant of
anticipatory bail.
12. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
