Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chandmal @ Chandanmal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2022

Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh

Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh

                                                                        1
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                   MCRC No. 63762 of 2021
                                          (CHANDMAL @ CHANDANMAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   Indore, Dated : 24-01-2022
                                         Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicants.

                                         Shri Pranay Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Heard through Video Conferencing.

This first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants - Chandmal and Nemichand, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.07/2021, registered at Police Station- Nagda, District- Ujjain (M.P.) for offences punishable under Section 339-C of the Municipalities Act.

Prosecution story , in brief is that applicants who are the owners of certain land, situated within the territorial limits of Municipality Nadga have sold small pieces of land by dividing them in plots unauthorizedly to other persons. It is further alleged that applicants have not obtained requisite permission for development of colony thereby violating the rules laid down for all such work. Accordingly, complainant has lodged report against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have not developed any colony for which statutory permissions were required. No case u/S 339 of Municipalities Act is made out against them. They have appeared before the Investigating Officer after receiving notice u/S 41-A of Cr.P.C. and cooperated in the investigation. Allegations are based on documentary evidence which is already in possession of the police. They are not required for custodial interrogation. They are old aged persons aged about 72 and 77 years respectively. They have falsely been implicated in the matter. Even otherwise, chargsheet has been filed before the Court of JMFC, Nagda Distt. Ujjain against them from where arrest warrant has been issued against the applicants. Trial will take time to conclude. Therefore, they be Signature Not Verified SAN granted protection against arrest.

Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the said application and submits that applicants remained absent before the Court of JMFC, Nagda on the date when chargsheet was filed against them. Therefore, they may not be protected against arrest.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,material pointed out by learned counsel for both the parties, allegations made against the applicants, I am not inclined to allow this bail application.

However, looking the old age of the applicants and also the fact that offences alleged against them are not punishable for more than seven years of imprisonment and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar's case [(2014) 8 SCC 273], it is directed that if applicants/accused persons surrendered before the concerned Court and they want to file application u/S 437 of Cr.P.C. for regular bail, then, their application shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, preferable on the same day in the light of Arnesh Kumar's case.

This petition is disposed off with the aforesaid directions. C.C. as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE sh Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2022.01.25 11:47:17 IST