Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manjri Choudhary vs Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of ... on 12 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH
M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018
(Smt. Manjri Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore dated 12/07/2018
Ms. Isha Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Deepak, learned ASG for the non-applicant/State.
Heard.
This is third - repeat application filed by applicant - Smt
Manjri Choudhary, who is apprehending her arrest in connection
with Crime No.BDI/2014/E/0008 for offence punishable under
Sections 420/468/471/120-B of IPC. Her earlier applications were
dismissed on merit.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
during investigation, the applicant cooperated with the
investigation and no arrest warrant or notice has been issued
against her. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on
29/05/2015. At the time of filing of charge-sheet, she was not
present before the Court and, therefore, the learned trial Court
issued Non-bailable warrant against her. Immediately after
coming to know about the same, she filed applications for grant of
anticipatory bail which were dismissed from time to time on
11/08/2017 and 16/01/2018 respectively. In the meanwhile,
proceedings under section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 was initiated against her. As per order-sheets dated
8/04/2017, 17/11/2017 and 17/01/2018 after due publication, she
has been declared Proclaimed Offender. She challenged the said
order in W.P.(Cri.) No.109/2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
on 14/05/2018. The aforesaid writ petition was permitted to be
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH
M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018
(Smt. Manjri Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.)
withdrawn vide order dated 14/05/2018. Order dated 14/05/2018
reads as under :-
14.05.2018
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner,submits that the
petitioner be permitted to withdraw this writ
petition as the petitioner would like to move fresh
application for anticipatory bail in view of the
subsequent event, viz., vide order dated
25.04.2018, the husband of the petitioner has
been granted regular bail.
The writ petition stands dismissed as not
pressed.
3. Thereafter, the present application has been filed. In the
present anticipatory bail application, it is nowhere stated that the
applicant was declared Proclaimed Offender.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
application for grant of bail of her husband was allowed by order
dated 25/04/2018 and after grant of interim bail, she filed an
application before the learned trial Court to recall or close the
proclamation proceedings and also gave her appearance before
the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court marked her
appearance on 22/06/2018 and 3/07/2018, but the application for
recalling has not been decided as respondent/CBI took time to file
reply.
5. The factum of presence of applicant before the learned trial Court on 22/06/2018 and 3/07/2018 is not disputed by Shri Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent. He has submitted that once the order has been passed in proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, the present application is not maintainable and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018 (Smt. Manjri Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.) prays for dismissal of the application.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the law laid down by the Apex Court in para - 32 in the case of Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai patel & Others decided in Case No.Appeal (Civil) 2003 of 2008 decided on 14/03/2008 and submitted that after order dated 17/01/2018 she marked her presence before the learned trial Court and, therefore, the present application is maintainable. Para 32 of the judgment reads as under :-
32. The provisions contained in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were put on the statute book for certain purpose. It was enacted to secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the attachment shall be withdrawn. Even the property which was attached, should be restored. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant sale of the property despite the fact that the absconding accused had surrendered and obtained bail. Once he surrenders before the Court and the Standing Warrants cancelled, he is no longer an absconder.
The purpose of attaching the property comes to an end. It is to be released subject to the provisions of the Code. Securing the attendance of an absconding accused, is a matter between the State and the accused. Complainant should not ordinarily derive any benefit therefrom. If the property is to be sold, it vests with the State subject to any order passed under Section 85 of the Code. It cannot be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far less for executing the decree of a third party, who had no right, title or interest thereon.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that once she(applicant) appeared before the Court and filed an application for recalling of order, she is no longer an HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018 (Smt. Manjri Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.) absconder. The purpose of attaching property comes to an end and prays that her application be allowed and interim protection granted to her on 17/05/2018 be continued.
8. On merits, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Sharad Kabra are the main accused. The present petitioner is a sleeping director of the company and there is no prima facie complaint against her and as both the aforesaid co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, she prays that this application be allowed and as interim protection was granted to her on 17/05/2018 the same shall be continued for a period of 30 days. She also placed reliance on order dated 11/07/2018 passed by the Apex Court in the W.P. (S) (Criminal) No(s)157/2018 in the case of Shrestha Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation which reads as under :-
We are not inclined to entertain this petition on merits, in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner should approach the Trial Court in the first instance. At the same time, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we pass the following directions :
The petitioner has been issued summons with a direction to appear before the Trial Court tomorrow i.e. on 12.07.2018. having regard to the fact that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, we agree with the request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and give him liberty to appear before the Trial Court on or before 19.07.2018.
2. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file bail application. Such application shall be considered by the trial Court forthwith. Even if the application is rejected, the petitioner shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days in order to enable him to approach the High Court/higher forum.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : INDORE BENCH M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018 (Smt. Manjri Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.) The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
9. The law on the subject is well settled. I am not inclined to entertain this application on merit. The application is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to aforesaid order dated 11/07/2018 passed in W.P.(s) (Criminal) No(s).157/2018 in the case of Shrestha Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and submitted that a liberty be granted to the applicant to appear before the learned trial Court and file an application for grant of regular bail and if her application for grant of bail is rejected, she shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days in order to unable her to approach the higher forum/High Court.
10. Considering the fact that the applicant is a women and, therefore, I grant liberty to the applicant to file bail application and mark her presence before the learned trial Court. In case, if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned trial Court forthwith. If her application is rejected, then the applicant shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days in order to unable her to approach the higher forum/High Court.
11. With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018 stands disposed of.
(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge pn Preetha Nair 2018.07.13 14:11:59 +05'30'