Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maghvendra Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2020
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C-532-2020
(MAGHVENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 14/01/2020
Shri Tapendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Rajput, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
Heard on I.A Nos. 460/2020 & 462/2020 an applications under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed. Shri Anoop gupta and Shri Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Counsel for complainant are permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor during hearing.
Case dairy is perused.
This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C preferred by the applicant for the alleged offences registered at Crime No. 847/2019 at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior of the offence punishable under Section 195-A of IPC.
It is alleged by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence in any manner. It is further alleged that applicant has recently been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2019 in M.Cr.C No. 45839/2019 for punishable offence under sections 376 and 506 of IPC. The allegation against the present applicant is that after availing the benefit of anticipatory bail THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-532-2020 (MAGHVENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) in the aforesaid M.Cr.C, the applicant is threatening the complainant to enter into compromise in the matter and he has also given temptation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant, therefore, on the basis of which, present FIR has been registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 24 years of age and the statement of his land lord recorded to the effect that applicant was at his house at the time when incident was occurred. He further submits that he has filed application for conducting inquiry in the matter before the Superintendent of Police as well as Station House Officer concerned, but despite of the same, FIR has been registered against the present applicant. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mubin & Ors. reported in 2011 CRI. L.J. 3850 and has argued that merely filing of first information report against the accused persons does not amount to commission of an offence and it is only accusation/allegation which can be said to be levelled against the accused person at this stage. He has further submitted that only the Court can found to that effect that at the time of framing of charges. It is further argued that the Rajasthan High Court has considered the aforesaid preposition and it is held that recalling of bail order and issuance of warrants against the accused persons only on the ground of breaching the condition and subsequent cancellation of bail was held to be improper. He has further relied THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-532-2020 (MAGHVENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2756, and has prayed that similar direction may be issued to him. Counsel for the applicant further argued that the offence under Section 195-A of IPC could not be registered against the present applicant only remedy was to file a complaint, for which he has relied upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Satish Chavri Vs. State of M.P. being M.Cr.C No. 52918/2019, Chandrakant Vs. State of M.P. being M.Cr.C No.49031/2019 and Pawan Sancheti Vs. State of M.P. being M.Cr.C No. 40732/2019 whereby benefits of anticipatory bail were granted to the applicant in that cases. It is further submitted that after filing a false case, FIR has been registered against the present applicant. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Upon these grounds, he prays for bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for State as well as counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application and stated that conditions of earlier bail are being breached by the present applicant. Learned counsel for the complainant have drawn attention of this Court to applications submitted by the complainant to SHO concerned as well as concerning Superintendent of Police, but police authorities have not taken any action against the present applicant, therefore, on the basis of private complaint, offence under Section 195-A of IPC has been registered against the present applicant and it is further THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-532-2020 (MAGHVENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) submitted that applicant is still absconding in the matter and he is not cooperating with the investigation. Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is seen that earlier anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been allowed. There is specific allegation against the present applicant regarding breach of the terms and conditions as imposed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation and he has tried to threat the complainant to settle the controversy by giving temptation or offering money. There is specific allegation in the complaint which was made by the complainant against the present applicant.
After going through the complaint, it is seen that there is breach of condition as imposed by coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier bail application.
The terms and conditions were imposed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C No. 45839/2019 decided on 11.11.2019 which reads as under:-
"This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be and he would not move in the vicinity of complainant party.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-532-2020 (MAGHVENDRA RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3. The applicant shall 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 shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7. The applicant shall mark his presence before the Police Station Bahodapur on Monday to Saturday from 10 am to 5 pm till filling of the charge-sheet. Considering the fact that condition No.2 as imposed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation being M.Cr.C No.45839/2019 is breached by the applicant, this Court deems it appropriate to reject the present bail application. He has misused the liberty granted by this Court while allowing his anticipatory bail.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable as the aforesaid bail was allowed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, whereas, present bail has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is factually different and are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Applicant is directed to surrender and apply for regular bail. In view of aforesaid, present bail application stands rejected.
(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE LJ* LOKENDRA JAIN 2020.01.21 14:30:13 +05'30'