Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharad Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC
2024:MPHC-JBP:51359
JBP:51359
1 MCRC No.23031/2024
No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23031 of 2024
SHARAD AGARWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Smt. Rashmi Pathak - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
ORDER
Case diary is available.
2. This first application under Section 438 of CrPC/482 of BNSS has
been filed for grant of anticipatory bail
bail.
3. Applicant
pplicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.45/2020 registered at Police Station - Civil Lines, Chhatarpur for
offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 r/w Section 34 of
IPC.
4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that according to the
prosecution case, the land in dispute was originally recorded as a
government land. Thereafter, a temporary Patta was granted to one Viliam
Tirki for a period of five years. The said Patta was never extended and,
therefore the life of Patta came to an end sometimes in the year 1977.
Admittedly, the said Patta was never extended.. However, in the year 1983-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC
2024:MPHC-JBP:51359
JBP:51359
No.
84, the revenue authorities recorded the names of Ramswaroop,
Ramswaroop, Sarman
Devi and Ram Sevak as Bhumi Swami. According to the complainant, the
said mutation was done contrary to record and by mentioning incorrect
case number. No order of allotment of land to above three persons was
ever passed. Thereafter, Sarm
Sarman Devi, Ramswaroop and Ram Sevak
alienated the property to various persons, which ultimately came to
applicant. Applicant in his turn has alienated to Prakhar Samajotthan
Pragati Samiti.. It is submitted that names
name of Sarman Devi, Ramswaroop
and Ram Sevak were mutated sometime in the year 1983
1983-84
84 whereas the
applicant has purchased the land in the year 2010. It is submitted by
counsel for applicant that applicant is bonafide purchaser and he was not
aware of the fact
act that the names of Sarman Devi, Ramswaroop and
Ramsevak were wrongly recorded in the revenue records. If that was
done, then the revenue authorities are also responsible for the same
same. It is
submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
31.12.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.12284/2020 had granted anticipatory
bail to co-accused
accused Prem Chandra Gupta who had also purchased a part
of land by a sale deed executed by Shekh Jahoor who purchased the land
from Sarman Devi. It is submitted that so far as tthe
he present applicant is
concerned, the applicant had filed M.Cr.C.No.7431/2020 and in said
proceedings an interim protection was granted. Ultimately by order
dated 06.05.2024, the application filed by the applicant under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. has been dis
dismissed,
missed, therefore it cannot be said that the
applicant was absconding. The case of the applicant is identical to the
case of co-accused
accused Prem Chandra Gupta who has already been extended
the benefit of anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra,, the application is vehemently
ve opposed by counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC
2024:MPHC-JBP:51359
JBP:51359
No.
State. By referring to certain observations made by this Court while
deciding the application filed by applicant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
it is submitted that once this Court has come to a conclusion that prima
facie offence
fence registered against the applicant is made out, then he is not
entitled for anticipatory bail but fairly conceded that the co-accused
co
Prem Chandra Gupta has already been granted anticipatory bail by order
dated 31.12.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.12284/2020
M.Cr.C.No.12284/2020.
6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
7. Admittedly, allegations made against present applicant and co-
co
accused Prem Chandra Gupta are identical. The basic allegations are
that they have purchased land, which was illegally mutated in the name
of Sarman Devi, Ramswaroop and Ram Sevak.
8. So far as the observations made by this Court in proceedings
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the scope of said
proceedings are completely different. The basic question involved in
said proceedings was as to whether any offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, 469, 470, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC is made out or not. The
scope of application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is as to whether
applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail or not.
9. Admittedly, applicant was granted interim protection by order
dated 20.02.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.7431/2020 and the said interim
protection continued till 06.05.2024 when the application under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Thu
Thus,
s, by no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that applicant was absconding during this period.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion
that once co-accused
accused Prem Chandra Gupta has been granted anticipatory
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC
2024:MPHC-JBP:51359
JBP:51359
No.
bail and in absence of any distinguishable feature, the application filed
by applicant for grant of anticipatory bail is also liable to be allowed.
allowed
11. Accordingly, it is directed that in case if applicant appears before
the Investigating Officer on or before 24.10.2024 andd furnishes a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
Rupees One Lakh Only)
Only
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer, then he shall be released on anticipatory bail. The applicant
shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates, which may be fixed
by the trial Court in that regard.
12. This bail order shall continue till conclusion of trial. However, in
case of bail jump, his bail shall automatically stand canceled.
13. It is made clear that in case if the applicant fails to appear before
the Investigating Officer on or before 24.10.2024, then this anticipatory
bail order shall automatically come to an end.
14. In the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case
of XYZ and Others Vs. State ooff Madhya Pradesh and Another
reported in (2021) 16 SCC 179
179,, intimation regarding grant of bail be
sent to the complainant.
15. With aforesaid observations, application is allowed.
(G.S.
G.S. AHLUWALIA)
AHLUWALIA
JUDGE
VB*
VINAY KUMAR BURMAN
2024.10.15 19:27:57 +05'30'
