Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Jaiswal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20449 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NARENDRA JAISWAL S/O SHRI B.L. JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN R/O
DAYANAND SARASWATI WARD JABALPUR POLICE
STATION JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH).
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI RAHUL TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION CHOURAI DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI D.K. PAROUHA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This i s first bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No. 514/2021, registered
at Police Station-Chourai, District Chhindwara (MP) for the offence under
Sections 34(2) and 45 of M.P. Excise Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant
is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. Only evidence available
against the applicant is memorandum of co-accused person. He is a licensee. In
view of same, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the
anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that applicant has filed writ petition
before this Court, in which he was granted protection from arrest till next date
of hearing. Order was passed on 23.12.2021. Thereafter, applicant has not
joined investigation. Applicant is not cooperating in investigation of case.
Repeated notices were given to applicant from year 2021. Some of the notices
were also served upon him. Prize money has also been declared on the head of
applicant. In these circumstances, he may not be released on anticipatory bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Apex Court in case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 has held as under :
"43. The scope and ambit of Section 170 has already been dealt
with by this Court in Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v.
State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423].
This is a power which is to be exercised by the court after the
completion of the investigation by the agency concerned.
Therefore, this is a procedural compliance from the point of view
of the court alone, and thus the investigating agency has got a
limited role to play. In a case where the prosecution does not
require custody of the accused, there is no need for an arrest
when a case is sent to the Magistrate under Section 170 of the
Code. There is not even a need for filing a bail application, as
the accused is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of
charges and issuance of process for trial. If the court is of the
view that there is no need for any remand, then the court can fall
back upon Section 88 of the Code and complete the formalities
required to secure the presence of the accused for the
commencement of the trial. Of course, there may be a situation
where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the
accused will have to be heard. Therefore, in such a situation, an
opportunity will have to be given to the accused persons, if the
court is of the prima facie view that the remand would be
required. We make it clear that we have not said anything on the
cases in which the accused persons are already in custody, for
which, the bail application has to be decided on its own merits.
Suffice it to state that for due compliance of Section 170 of the
Code, there is no need for filing of a bail application."
6. Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is an old
man, aged about 66 years and he undertakes to join investigation immediately.
He will appear before investigating officer tomorrow for completion of
investigation.
7. Considering aforesaid statement made by counsel for applicant and
judgment of Apex Court in case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), police is
directed, on appearance of applicant, to give him notice to complete
investigation and do not arrest him, if he cooperates in investigation. If applicant
fails to appear before investigating officer tomorrow, then prosecution is at
liberty to arrest the applicant and proceed with further investigation of the case.
8. With aforesaid direction, M.Cr.C. is disposed off.
9. C.C. today.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
vkt
VINOD
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH,
KUMAR
2.5.4.20=502f56362111056e3584ca82279e
5efd816766cb7c5a1f490a5ca63b1116883f,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=121D0E9F65C983AD564933
TIWARI
78702622477111B5016F24D35FA8A76C2C
A46685EE, cn=VINOD KUMAR TIWARI
Date: 2024.05.27 18:25:41 +05'30'
