Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashwanram Chiraman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2019
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
MCRC 38537/2018 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 38537/2018
(Ashwanaram Chiraman vs. State of MP)
Indore: Dated:- 11/09/2019:-
Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri R.S. Darbar, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
1. This is first application under section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioner Ashwanaram Chiraman seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.135/2017 registered at Police Station -Narsinghgarh, district - Rajgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that being Tehsildar, he conspired along with Patwari and other Revenue Officers subordinate to him and mutated the agricultural land of Narayan Singh in the name of Hari Singh showing Narayan Singh as 'dead". Hari Singh was not heir or legal representative of Narayan Singh. Similar offence is repeated in the case of Samandar Singh also. Later, the owners Narayan Singh and Samandar Singh came to know about the fraud. They approached the Collector. An inquiry was assigned to the Tehsildar, Narsinghgarh, who found the petitioner guilty. The police was intimated by Naib Tehsildar. The police registered the crime. In the FIR, so also in the MCRC 38537/2018 2 statement given before the police, witnesses have made certain allegations against the petitioner. Offence is still under investigation.
3. The anticipatory bail is prayed on the ground that the petitioner is a Tehsildar. As per procedure laid down in the Land Revenue Code, in case of undisputed mutation application, no inquiry is required. The Patwari has submitted a report before him showing the owner 'dead'. He published a notice as per procedure and when there was no objection received in his Office, he ordered mutation. It is further contended that there is a remedy available to the complainant under Section 116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code that in case any wrong order is passed in respect of mutation, he can apply to get it corrected and it can be corrected at any time. Third ground taken up by the petitioner is that he acted as a 'Judge' and has protection under Sections 2 & 3 of Judges Protection Act, 1985. Fourth ground is that the petitioner being a public servant cannot be prosecuted without proper sanction of the appropriate government. No such sanction is obtained by the police, therefore, his prosecution is not tenable in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Balram and another vs. Aswani Kumar Yadav and another reported in 2001(2) M.P.H.T. 330 and S.S. Trivedi vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2007(5) M.P.H.T. 138. Lastly, it is asserted that the petitioner is a Tehsildar and there is no possibility of his absconding, therefore, he be granted bail.
MCRC 38537/2018 34. Looking to the nature of crime, allegation made against the petitioner, inquiry report of Tehsildar, statement of the witnesses, repetition of the crime and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail on any of the ground raised by him. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
soumya
Soum
Digitally signed by
Soumya Ranjan Dalai
DN: c=IN, o=High Court
of Madhya Pradesh
ya Bench Indore,
postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
Ranjan
2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84
322bb5797cf28ee60671
538b737cf52962d84d7b
527897e53ac,
Dalai
cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai
Date: 2019.09.12
11:40:27 +05'30'