Ram Prakash Nayak vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—Present petition for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no. 2 by this Court on 24.7.2013 is preferred by the petitioner in his individual capacity in the nature of public interest.

Vide order dated 24.7.2013 this Court granted anticipatory bail observing as follows:

According to prosecution for a period of 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2011 FIR was lodged by complainant Rajiv Tiwari, Assistant Cooperative Inspector on 29.3.2012 at Pawai police station naming 9 accused persons including petitioner also. Substance of allegation is that in Scheme "Swarn Jayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojna" in the capacity of being officials of District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Panna accused persons misappropriated about Rs. 99 lacs by showing disbursement of the loan amount to the groups of persons claiming the benefit of the scheme. One of the main allegations is that without ascertaining and verifying the fact whether any Swayam Sahayata Samuh exists or not loan has been disbursed in the name of fake persons also.

Learned Govt. Advocate submits that petitioner has criminal past and three more cases are there and he is in list of wanted accused person.

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire cases have been registered about 12 years ago I.e. in the year 2000. Petitioner was the person who contested case in the Apex Court and order of supersession was set aside.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Petitioner Sanjay Nagayach is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigating agency and the trial. In case some other offence reported of such nature, petitioner shall be liable for cancellation of this bail order. In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two separate sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. Conditions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall apply on the petitioner during currency of bail.

Present petition for cancellation of bail is sought on the grounds that on 4.3.2014 two more FIRs have also been registered against the respondent one at Police Station Amanganj District Panna at Crime No. 54/2014 under Sections 420, 409, 120B and 34 of the IPC and another at Police Station Shahnagar District Panna at Crime No. 32/2014 under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the IPC.

Placing reliance on Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a public spirited person and is a member of Primary Cooperative Society Rajapur District Panna, hence he is helping the Court to bring some new facts on record to reconsider the prayer of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that in view of the conditions imposed on the respondent in the bail order dated 24.7.2013 that in case of some other offence is reported of such nature respondent shall be liable for cancellation of bail order may be implemented in words and spirit because after the aforesaid bail order, because two new FIRs have been registered against the respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it was not the mandate of the bail order because aforesaid condition found place in the bail order because Govt. Advocate argued regarding some criminal antecedents of the respondent. Subsequent FIRs in question though have been registered on 4.3.2014, but they are based on the basis of reports of respective Co-operative Inspectors pertains to the working prior to the year 2011. In both the FIRs, cause of delay is shown to be some inquiry on the basis of applications.

After hearing the contentions of rival parties, bail order and the FIRs, it emerges out that according to Section 438 of Cr.P.C. if any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, anticipatory bail may be granted to him after taking into consideration-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested.

According to Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., in the light of the facts of the particular case, Court may impose any condition including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail was granted under that section.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, observed as follows:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused''s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant be arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

Whereas for cancellation of bail according to Section 439(2) if any person who has been released on bail may be directed to be arrested and commit him to custody.

Presently, nothing has been brought on record to show or establish that anything specific has been done by the respondent after granting bail. Hence, there appears nothing to take the respondent in custody, who has been released by the impugned bail order. For functioning and working prior to the year 2011, in the capacity of Office Bearer of Co-operative Central Bank, if new crimes have been registered at a belated stage then certainly registration of number of cases may adversely effect the accused for his entitlement for grant of anticipatory bail in those cases.

On perusal of the impugned bail order, it becomes clear that anticipatory bail granted to the respondent may be cancelled only when on account of some mischief and overt acts new cases have been registered and were brought to the notice of this Court then it will be a case of misuse of the bail also.

Considering the aforesaid, it does not appear to be a fit case for cancellation of bail merely because of registration of subsequent FIRs, which are not the result of misuse of facility of bail. At the most, it should be relevant consideration for anticipatory bail in those cases that number of cases are registered against the respondent.

As discussed above, no case for cancellation of bail is made out.

Present petition is dismissed.