Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 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 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52291 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
NITIN TIWARI S/O DEVENDRA TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT
SERVICE HALKA PATWARI R/O CIVIL WARD
NO. 4, DAMOH, P.S. KOTWALI DAMOH TAHSIL
AND DISTRICT DAMOH (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI CHANDRA NITIN KARAN- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
BHAGWAN DAS S/O RATIRAM YADAV R/O
SANJAY WARD HATTA, TAHSIL HATTA,
DISTRICT DAMOH (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY SONI- G.A FOR RESPONDENT/STATE, SHRI
SHIRSHIR VERMA - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR/COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for admission 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.
T he applicant is apprehending his arrest in Criminal Complaint Case No.992/2022 pending before JMFC, Hata, District Damoh in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Advocate submits that on a complaint made by complainant Signature Not Verified alleging therein that the present applicant being Patwari colluded with other Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:11:22 PM 2 persons, who had moved an application for getting property partitioned in which present applicant being Patwari submitted a false report and on the basis of such report Tehsildar passed an order. Counsel for the applicant submitted that role of the present applicant is very limited. He has not given any incorrect report and also not colluded with the persons, who sought partition. Present applicant is not the beneficiary as such he was performing his duties assigned to him. Therefore, he cannot be made an accused in the alleged offence. It is complaint case. Nothing has to be interrogated from him and nothing is to be seized from him. Therefore no useful purpose will be served by sending him to jail. Hence, present applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail O n the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail.
S h r i Shishir Verma, learned counsel for the Objector/complainant submits that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and statements recorded of the witnesses, it is clear that present applicant was involved in the alleged fraud as such rightly made accused and bail application deserves to be dismissed.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of case diary and the fact that it is a complaint case and nothing is to be interrogated and seized from the present applicant, I am inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:11:22 PM 3 concerned trial court/Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules (SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE tarun Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:11:22 PM