Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxminarayan Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-50237-2019
(LAXMINARAYAN CHATURVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated :03/12/2019
Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Purushottam Pandey, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case diary perused.
This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.68/2019, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, District Gwalior (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not committed the offence in any manner. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 65 years old and is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhari Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2003 SCC (Criminal) 1953 and in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(1)SCC(Criminal)884 and has argued that THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-50237-2019 (LAXMINARAYAN CHATURVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) anticipatory bail application can be filed at any stage. There is no boundation of not filing the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. after completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet. It is alleged that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "it cannot be permitted to be jettisoned on technicalities such as challan having been filed, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, the Court must exercise its discretion judicially and anticipatory bail can be granted as long as the applicant is not being arrested"
Per contra counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the applicant and has contended that the applicant is habitual offender and two other cases of similar nature are being registered against the present applicant and he repeatedly committing the same offence again and again. The applicant is absconding and not cooperating in the investigation, despite of the fact that he is aware of registration of FIR against him which is clear from the aspect that the applicant himself preferred an application to the Superintendent of Police on 22.6.2019. Thus, the grant of anticipatory bail in the event of seizure is yet to be made from the present applicant is not warranted.
Counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment passed by THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-50237-2019 (LAXMINARAYAN CHATURVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and has contended that in cases where there is no question of cooperation from the accused and he is absconding, the benefit of anticipatory bail could not be extended. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Deciding the bail application is discretion of the Court, it depends upon the facts of each case, no straitjacket formula can be applied for consideration of the bail application. In the present case, investigation is pending and offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC are registered against the present applicant. The FIR registered on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant to the effect that applicant alongwith others was involved in making the forged and fabricated mark-sheets. The statement of other accused have been recorded, wherein, they have categorically stated that in the house of Lakshmi Narayan/present applicant, they manufactured the forged and fabricated mark-sheets. The FIR was registered on 21.5.2019 and after completion of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-50237-2019 (LAXMINARAYAN CHATURVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) investigation charge-sheet has been filed on 14.8.2019.
As far as the question of maintainability is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) has categorically considered the aforesaid aspect and has held that if applicant is not cooperating in investigation then certainly he is not entitled for anticipatory bail facts of each case are to be scrutinized separately.
Considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, and also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as the applicant is absconding and is not cooperating in the investigation. Therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
(Vishal Mishra)
vpn Judge
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2019.12.06
10:36:34
+05'30'