Mohd.Arif vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, Judge

By this application filed u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant Mohammed Arif has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No. 185/2011 registered by police station Jeevajiganj, Distt. Ujjain for offence under Sections 420 & 475 of the IPC. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel for the applicant submits that initially the case was registered at Crime No. 4/2011 by Police Station Jeevajiganj, Ujjain for offence u/s 379 of the IPC along with Sections 41 and 102 of the IPC and the Magistrate was pleased to grant bail. However, after a period of seven and half months the offence has been enhanced to one under Sections 420 and 475 of the IPC. Counsel submits that although the offences have been registered at different numbers i.e. 4/2011 & 185/12 by the same Police Station Jeevajiganj, Ujjain, it is a continuation of the earlier offence since the same vehicle is involved in the later offence. Placing reliance on Sayera Bi Vs. State of M.P. [2006 Cr.L.R. (MP) 262] and on Ramsewak and others Vs. State of M.P. [1979 Cri.L.J. 1485] to state that when bail has already been granted in the minor offence and the applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him, he was entitled to the same regarding the major offence also. So also relying on Ramsewak (supra), Counsel contended that when only the applicant feels there is an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested, this fact could be sufficient to attract the provision u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C., Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and prayed for dismissal of the application stating that a new offence has been registered by the police. He, however, candidly admitted that the offence pertains to the same vehicle that was implicated in Crime no.4/2011. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.

On considering the above submissions and placing reliance on Ramsewak (supra) whereby under similar circumstances, the Apex Court held that grant of anticipatory bail would not stand in way of committing the accused to the competent Court and in this light, I find that the application needs to be allowed. It is hereby allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail for the period of 30 days (thirty days) upon his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his further appearance as and when directed.

The applicant shall apply for regular bail within the aforesaid period of 30 days which shall be dealt with forthwith by the trial Court in accordance with law.

It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated u/s 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. C. c. as per rules.