Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Bhatia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6317
1 MCRC-49693-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49693 of 2024
RAJKUMAR BHATIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Karan Virwani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri G.S. Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.
ORDER
1. The present application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023/Section
439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, Sheopur vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in bail
application No.129/2024 has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to order sheet dated
26.11.2024 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaypur District
Sheopur had argued before this Court that apart from the offence under Sections
420, 120-B, 201 of IPC, Section 102/(2)(ख)/103(क), 104 of Trademark Act and
Section 63 of Copyright Act learned Magistrate had found that offence under
Sections 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, and 473 of IPC is also made out, therefore,
committed the matter to the Sessions Court, as the aforesaid Sections were triable
by the Court of Sessions and while considering the bail of the present respondents
No.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS in the light of judgment of
Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(8)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6317
2 MCRC-49693-2024
SCC 273 the trial Court ignored that prima facie provisions of Section 467 of IPC
were attracted which provided maximum punishment for life and had allowed the
application, which is per se illegal as the judgment of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) is
confined to the offences which has maximum sentence of 07 years.
3. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it has been contended that the very
order passed by the Court below while granting anticipatory bail to the present
respondents No.2 and 3 is perverse and wholly illegal, therefore, the said bail
requires to be cancelled.
4 . On the other hand , learned Govt. Advocate for the State as well as
learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 while placing order sheet dated
24.02.2025 had argued that after committal to the Sessions Court on 24.02.2025
charges have been framed and except for charge under Section 467 of IPC the trial
Court framed charges under Sections 420 in alternate 420/34, 468 in alternate
468/34, 469 in alternate 469/34, 471 in alternate 471/34, 473 in alternate 473/34,
201, 120(B) of IPC, Section 102/(2)(ख)/103(क), 104 of Trademark Act and
Section 63 of Copyright Act and sentence in all the offences are upto 07 years,
therefore, order passed by the trial Court granting anticipatory bail to the
respondents No.2 and 3 cannot be faulted with. Thus, it was prayed that the
present application for cancellation of bail has no merits, accordingly, it be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as
order sheets dated 26.11.2024 and 24.02.2025.
6. Vide order sheet dated 26.11.2024 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
while considering the charge sheet placed before it found that offence under
Sections 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, and 473 of IPC apart from other offences also
appears to be made out against respondents No.2 and 3 and as the said offences
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6317
3 MCRC-49693-2024
were triable by Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court.
Thereafter while considering the bail application learned Sessions Court granted
the anticipatory bail and while granting the bail had observed that earlier the
Judicial Magistrate First Class has not committed any error in granting bail to
respondents No.2 and 3 on the basis of guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court
in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (Supra). Thereafter, on 24.02.2025 learned
Additional Sessions Judge had framed charges, wherein charges under Sections
468, 469, 470, 471, and 473 of IPC were found to be made out but no charge
under Section 467 of IPC was framed and it is only Section 467 of IPC in which
the maximum sentence is for life and for the rest Sections maximum sentence is
upto 07 years, thus, the very reliance placed by the Court below in the matter of
Arnesh Kumar (Supra) cannot be said to be a perverse consideration.
7. Accordingly, the present application has no sum and substance and,
therefore, is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
