Madhya Pradesh High Court
Omprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2024
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 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57448 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
OMPRAKASH S/O SHRI SHANKARLALJI, AGED ABOUT
27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRISHI GRAM NAVDA TEHSIL
MHOW DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NANAKHEDA,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY TARUN PAGARE, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T his is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection
with Crime No.381/2021 registered at Police Station- Nanakheda, District Ujjain
(M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 and 120-B of IPC
and Section 6(1) of the M. P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,
2000.
2. Prosecution case is that co-accused Anand Bhatol alongwith his wife co-
accused Kavita Bhatole, brother co-accused Dharmendra Bhatol and father co-
accused Mangilal, in connivance with the applicant and other co-accused persons
with an intent to cheat the complainant Manish Anjhana and others floated a
scheme and allured them to invest Rs.1,00,000/- and get handsome returns to the
tune of Rs.20,000/- weekly though principal amount will remain intact. Being
influenced by them, complainant and his family members have invested their hard
earned money to the tune of more than Rs.3.00 crores and when the complainant
and his family members asked for their hard earned money, their request fell on
deaf ears as applicant and other co-accused persons did not return their hard
earned money. Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant and
other co-accused persons.
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused persons
namely, Anand, Kavita and Dharmendra have already been enlarged on bail under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court and co-accused Mangilal Bhatol has also
been granted bail by this Court. It is further argued that anticipatory bail
applications of co-accused Dheeraj Anjana and Pujabai have been disposed off by
this Court in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273].
4 . Counsel for the State submits that the applicant has played a role of
agent and induced the investors to invest huge amount in the account of the
company which was not returned. However, he could not dispute the facts that
the main accused persons have been granted regular bail applications under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and co-accused Dheeraj Anjana (MCRC No.7567/2023)
and Pujabai (MCRC No.22762/2022) have been disposed off in terms of Arnesh
Kumar (supra). The case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused
Dheeraj Anjana.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal the case dairy.
Applicant's custodial trial is required in the matter.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record
specially the fact that applicant procured jewellery purchased from the cheated
amount and also considering overall material produced on record, I am not
inclined to allow this bail application. However, looking to the fact that the offence
involved in the case are not punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment
and Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the offences for which punishment
prescribed is imprisonment for a term upto seven years, the accused may be kept
in custody only if the condition enumerated under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.
exists. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:-
"..........the arrest effected by the police officer does not
s at i s f y the requirements of Section 41 of the Code,
Magistrate is duty bound not to authorize his further detention
and release the accused......".
7 . Therefore, in view of the observations laid down in the judgement
referred above, I deem it fit to direct as under :-
(i) That, the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the
same is necessary and the applicant fails to cooperate in the investigation.
(ii) That, the applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the
investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation, then the occasion of
her arrest should not arise.
(iii) That, if the applicant-accused person is arrested and he wants to file
application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail before lower Court, then
he will be produced before the lower Court without any delay.
8 . Trial Court is also directed to consider his bail application as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, on the same day.
9. This application is disposed off with the aforesaid directions.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
