Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Sharma vs The State Of M.P. on 2 January, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 2nd OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56678 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SURESH SHARMA S/O JAYRAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 15, GULMOHAR
COLONY, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A. K. CHITALE SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ASHISH GUPTA,
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
P.S. RAJENDRA NAGAR DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRA-
DESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HITENDRA TRIPATHI, G.A.)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
They are heard. Perused the documents / challan papers.
This is applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.1019/2022 registered at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 292-A of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 02-01-2023 17:55:52 2 M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
Allegation against the applicant is of violation of Section 292 (C) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act which provides for punishment for illegal colonization. It is alleged against the applicant that he sold certain lands to the complainants between 1991 to 1996 and now he is trying to redevelop the colony on the same land which was earlier sold by him as power of attorney holder.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the provision of Section 292 (C) of the Act came into force only on 19/04/2010 and for the sake of argument even assuming that there was any violation of the rules and regulation, it was prior 2010 as admittedly the sale deeds have been executed by the applicant as a power of attorney holder between 1991 to 1996 only and thus, the aforesaid provision is not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel has further submitted that an application for demarcation was also filed by the applicant, in which all the complainants have also assented and the documents dated 23/09/2022 is also placed on record. Thus, it is submitted that it is not a case where the arrest of the applicant is necessary as the matter involves only non- compliance of the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, hence, it is submitted that the application be allowed and he be released on anticipatory bail.
Counsel for the respondent / State as well as the complainant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer, and it is submitted by Shri Vijay Assudani, counsel for the objector Paramjeet Singh that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out as there was an agreement between the objector and the applicant in respect of a part of the same land which is Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 02-01-2023 17:55:52 3 now being developed by him and otherwise also, the applicant has given an undertaking before the Supreme Court in a separate case that he would not alienate any immovable property which belongs to the applicant and since the properties also belong to the applicant, it is in violation of the undertaking given before the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the State has also submitted that the complainants in the present case have moved various complaints that the applicant is trying to redevelop the land which were earlier sold to them and thus, it is submitted that there is a clear violation of Section 292 (C) of the Act and thus, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as also the documents filed on record.
On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, it is apparent that the applicant has sold the land as a power of attorney to various persons including the complainant between 1991 to 1996 and admittedly the provisions of Section 292 (C) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 came into force on 19/04/2010 wherein the maximum sentence is provided for 7 years and prior to 2010, the penal provision was of 3 years to 7 years till 25/08/2003 and prior 2003, it was 6 months. In view of the same and also considering various dispute pending between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail as the custodial interrogation of the applicant who is 70 years old, does not appear necessary in the present case.
Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 02-01-2023 17:55:52 4 only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).
The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case is allowed. Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE krjoshi Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 02-01-2023 17:55:52