Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rafiq Mohammad vs Rameshchandra on 20 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 20 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43368 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAFIQ MOHAMMAD S/O VALI MOHAMMAD,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
R/O CHICHANI COLONY STATION ROAD
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SABRA BEE W/O RAFIQ MOHAMMAD, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
CHICHANI COLONY STATION ROAD MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI ABHISHEK RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
.
AND
1. RAMESHCHANDRA S/O SHRI PRAHLAD JI
GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABORER R/O CHICHANI COLONY
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GAURAV RAWAT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL.
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard and perused the record.
This is first bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Signature Not Verified Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of applicants who are apprehending their Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 5/21/2024 5:39:21 PM 2 arrest in relation to Criminal Case No.1526/2018 registered by JMFC, Mandsaur under Section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC.
2. The allegations against the applicants is that they have alienated the properties of the other persons and raised construction over there. Hence, the a criminal case was registered against the applicant on the basis of private complaint.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, the police has filed the Khatma report against the applicants, but later on a private complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was lodged and the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance against the applicants due to which they are facing the criminal case.
It is also submitted that the allegations against the applicants are that they have raised construction over the area of Plot No.35 and 22 by alienating the same illegally. It is also submitted that the property in question is based on the ownership and Vasiyatnama in favour of one Ramniwas who was also the owner on the basis of Vasiyatnama executed in his favour by one Foolchand and Foolchand has further executed a Vasiyat in favour of petitioner no.2 who is wife of petitioner no.1. Hence, prays for anticipatory bail.
4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that earlier, a Khatma report was filed in the matter, but later on, the cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court on the basis of private complaint lodged by neighbours. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has found the death certificate of Foolchand as forged and taken the cognizance against the petitioners. Hence, prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the face of record, it is clear that there is allegations of preparing Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 5/21/2024 5:39:21 PM 3 forged and fabricated documents against the petitioner and they have alienated the part of land of plot no.35 which is clearly reflecting, therefore, the cognizance taken by learned trial Court is very initial stage of the offence and the same shall be adjudicated after proper investigation or trial.
7. On this aspect, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and others [2012 (4) SCC 379] while canceling the anticipatory bail of the applicant therein so granted concerned High Court, has clearly observed that:-
"13.....The anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
21......The court may n o t exercise i t s discretion in derogation o f established principles of law, rather it has to be in strict adherence to them. Discretion has to be guided by law; duly governed by rule and cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or vague. The court must not y i e l d t o spasmodic sentiment to unregulated benevolence. The order dehors the grounds provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C. i t s e l f suf f ers f r o m non- application of mind and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the settled proposition of law laid down by Ho'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Singh (supra) as well as the factual scenario of the case, at this stage, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Hence, the application is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 5/21/2024 5:39:21 PM 4(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 5/21/2024 5:39:21 PM