Manjri Choudhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard.

This is third â€" repeat application filed by applicant â€" 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.

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 The aforesaid writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn vide order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.

Thereafter, the present application has been filed. In the present anticipatory bail application, it is nowhere stated that the applicant was declared

Proclaimed Offender.

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.Â

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 prays for dismissal of the application.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the law laid down by the Apex Court in para â€" 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 :-

The provisions contained in Section 82of 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 Codeof 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 85of 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.

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 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.Â

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.

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.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

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.

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.

With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. No.19593/2018 stands disposed of.