Madhya Pradesh High Court
Huzefa Ahmed Pathan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 1st OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36152 of 2022
Between:-
HUZEFA AHMED PATHAN S/O AKHALAQUE
AHAMED PATHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O
OLD ADDRESS 303, NARAYAN PLAZA, OPPOSITE
RAHUL MEDICAL, KAMBADPADA, BHIWANDI
THANE, MAHARASHTRA AND AT PRESENT
ADDRESS 69/2 JUNA RISALA INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY MR. AFZAL S. PAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE CRIME BRANCH BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT/STATE BY MR. AJEET RAWAT, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCTE)
(RESPONDENT/OBJECTOR BY MR. KAPIL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.93/2022 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, District Bhopal, for the offence punishable Signature Not Verified under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
SAN Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.08.03 11:30:04 ISTLearned counsel for the applicant submits that though in the alleged 2 crime, the applicant has been made accused, but his role was very limited because he is not an employee of a company against whom the allegation of cheating has been made by the complainants. He submits that on the basis of document i.e. applicant's bank account wherein a huge amount has been credited in his account by the company, he has been made accused by the prosecution. He further submits that looking to the nature of crime and the offence registered against the applicant, instead of arresting him, the prosecution may issue a notice to him under Section 41-A of the CrPC asking his presence and cooperation in the investigation. He also submits that the applicant is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court and also ready to provide full cooperation in the investigation. On these submissions, he prays that the applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that although the applicant is not the employee of the company, but he is the person who formed the company, committed cheating and collected the money from the complainants with an assurance that they would be given an adequate amount of profit and also allotted them sub-dealership of BPCL company whereas that company has not authorized the applicant for allotting the sub- dealership and as such, the applicant has rightly been made accused. He has also submitted that the applicant is a resident of Bombay and if he is granted interim protection, then there would be every possibility that he would not cooperate with the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the submissions Signature Not Verified SAN made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the statement Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.08.03 11:30:04 IST made by learned counsel for the applicant is absolutely incorrect and false on 3 the face of record because from the statement of applicant's bank account, it is clear that the account has been opened in the applicant's name in which his mobile number was also there in the said account and entry of huge amount indicates that he is the key person in the alleged fraud.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of case diary and in light of the law down by the Supreme Court in the cases reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 [Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another] and (2021) 10 SCC 773 [Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another], the respondents/authorities are directed to issue a notice to the applicant under Section 41-A of the CrPC and ask him to appear before the Investigating Officer and provide full cooperation in the investigation. However, during the course of investigation, if the respondents/authorities need arrest of the applicant, then after assigning reasons, they may proceed further.
Accordingly, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
Signature Not Verified SAN1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA bond executed by him;Date: 2022.08.03 11:30:04 IST 4
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.08.03 11:30:04 IST