Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Preeti Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 6th OF DECEMBER,2022
M.CR.C NO.54054 of 2022
BETWEEN :-
SMT. PREETI TIWARI, W/O. RAKESH TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT-33 YEARS, BY OCCUPATION-
PRIVATE JOB, RESIDENT OF-45 APR PRABHAT
VIHAR COLONY KATANGA DISTRICT-
JABALPUR (M.P.), PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
BHAWAN NO.56 PRABHATVIHAR COLONY, IN
FRONT OF LOKMANYA TILAK PARK, SATNA,
DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT -SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SHRI
NISHANK PAL VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH POLICE STATION-ECONOMIC
OFFENCES WING JABALPUR, HEADQUARTER-
BHOPAL (M.P.)
..RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MADHUR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
M.CR.C NO.54036 of 2022
BETWEEN :-
1. SMT. GIRJA DEVI, W/O. SHRI KODU PRASAD
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT-65 YEARS, BY
2
OCCUPATION-HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF-45
APR PRABHAT VIHAR COLONY KATANGA
DISTRICT-JABALPUR (M.P.), PERMANENT
RESIDENT OF BHAWAN NO.56 PRABHATVIHAR
COLONY, IN FRONT OF LOKMANYA TILAK
PARK, SATNA, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)
2. RAKESH TIWARI, SON OF SHRI KODU PRASAD
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT-36 YEARS, BY
OCCUPATION-PRIVATE JOB, RESIDENT OF-45
APR PRABHAT VIHAR COLONY KATANGA
DISTRICT-JABALPUR (M.P.), PERMANENT
RESIDENT OF BHAWAN NO.56 PRABHATVIHAR
COLONY, IN FRONT OF LOKMANYA TILAK
PARK, SATNA, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT -SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SHRI
NISHANK PAL VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
THROUGH POLICE STATION-ECONOMIC
OFFENCES WING JABALPUR, HEADQUARTER-
BHOPAL(M.P.)
..RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MADHUR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These petitions coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Sujoy Paul passed the following :
ORDER
With the consent finally heard.
Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on joint request of the parties, these matters were analogously heard. The impugned orders of similar nature dated 01.11.2022 and 04.11.2022 are called in question in these matters filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners are family members of aGovernment employee, who are facing trial under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation continued for about 3 years and during the entire investigation, the present petitioners,family members of Government employee/main accused co-operated and participated in the investigation. Before the Court below they preferred application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by Court below. The custodial interrogation of these petitioners is not required. There is no necessity to send them to custody when they are ready to co-operate and participate in the trial. The Co-ordinate Bench in M.Cr.C. No.12729/2022 (Ranjan Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India) has dealt almost similar situation and interfered with the order of trial Court impugned therein. Thus interference to the extent prayed for be made.
Shri Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute that the petitioners indeed participated in the investigation and fairly submitted that their custodial interrogation is not required.
The Co-ordinate Bench in Ranjan Kumar Sinha (supra) recorded as under :
"The challenge in this petition is to the order by which an application for cancellation of warrant of arrest filed u/S 70 of sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C has been rejected on the ground that applicant-accused did not appear as and when the prosecution filed their charge-sheet in respect of Crime No.RC0082020A0002 alleging offences punishable u/S 120-B r/w Sections 407, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of 4 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at P.S. Bhopal.
The records as well as the reply filed by CBI reveals that applicant had cooperated during the investigation which ended in filing of charge-sheet on 14.01.2022 before the trial Court.
Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Apex Court recently pronounced in the case of Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.838/2021 (Annexure P/3 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191/2021 (Annexure P/4) and Amanpreet Singh Vs. Republic of India (CBI) in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5234/2021 (Annexure P/5) to contend that the requirement of arresting an accused who has cooperated during the process of investigation merely due to filing of charge-sheet gets obviated.
After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that since it is not disputed that the present applicant had cooperated in the investigation and their investigation stands concluded by filing of charge-sheet. The question of arresting the applicant would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.01.2022 passed by trial Court rejecting th application u/s 70 of sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C. is quashed the impugned order to the extent it relates to rejection of application u/S 70 of sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C. is set aside. The subject to the fact that applicant appears and furnishes bail bond to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Judge on or before 12.04.2022.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules."
In view of aforesaid admitted position between the parties, it is clear like cloudless sky that the petitioners are family members of accused Government servant and present petitioners themselves are not 5 Government servant. The petitioners have participated and co-operated with the investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required.
Considering the aforesaid, in our opinion the Court below was not justified in rejecting the application by impugned orders dated 01.11.2022 and 04.11.2022. Thus, both the orders are set aside to the extent it relates to rejection of applications under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners may now appear before the Court below and furnish bail bond to the satisfaction of the Court below.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL ) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RC
RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE
2022.12.06 17:33:11 +05'30'