Baldev Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J

This is first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.87/2022 registered at Police Station Dhodhpur, Sheopur, (MP) f o r the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

In brief case of prosecution is that on 28.07.2022 Jasveer Singh s/o Mahendra Singh lodged a computerized complaint with police Dhodhar, District Sheopur against the present applicant/accused Baldev Singh alleging that the present applicant/accused entered into an agreement with complainant Jasveer Singh to sell his land situated at village Chandipura, Patwari Halka No.4 Tehsil Veerpur, District Sheopur bearing survey No.179 area 1.45 hectare for consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-. At the time of agreement Rs.50,000/- were paid later on in front of witnesses Tahal Singh and Gurudev Singh Rs.11,50,000/- total Rs.12 lacs by way of consideration has been paid to the present applicant/accused. Rs.10 lacs remained to be paid which was agreed that it will be paid at the time of registration. In revenue record in the aforesaid land as a owner name of Govind Prasad s/o Kastur Chandra Sharma and Jugraj Sharma s/o Kastur Chandra Sharma were recorded. It was the liability of the present applicant/accused Baldev Singh to get his name mutated in place of Govind Prasad, for which, he requested so many times but on one and other count he used to avoid. On inquiry one Kashmir s/o Munshiram resident of Sardoolgarh Distrit Mansa Punjab informed him that similarly he got executed an agreement with him and cheated him. The present applicant/accused took Rs.12 lacs from him through aforesaid cheating.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the application is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that on the application of complainant inquiry was conducted by SDO(P) Sheopur. As per inquiry report no cognizable offence is made out against the present applicant/accused. It is a family dispute. He is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granted anticipatory bail. Hence, it is prayed that applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application stating that learned trial Court has already disposed of anticipatory bail application of the applicant in the light of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014 8 SCC 273 and there is no order of rejection of the bail order by the learned trial Court. It was only directed to follow the directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the application of the applicant/accused was disposed of by the trial court with direction to the investigating officer that he would proceed as per the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014 8 SCC 273, But the investigation officer does not follow the mandate of Arnesh Kumar (supra). In such circumsances the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

It is seen from the record that the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was disposed of by the learned trial Court itself directing the police authorities to follow the procedure as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). Consequently, present bail application is hereby dismissed.