Ramnaresh Rajak vs State Of M.P

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This first application under Section 438 of C.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.4/2021 registered by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offence under

Section 306 of IPC.

According to the prosecution case, the applicant got a personal loan of Rs.1,25,000/- sanctioned in favour of the deceased on the basis of the

documents of the deceased. Thereafter, the applicant took Rs.60,000/- from the deceased by cheque and Rs.40,000/ by cash. When the bank officials

came to the deceased for recovery of the loan amount, then the deceased and his family members demanded their money back from the applicant. It

is alleged that the applicant refused to return the amount and accordingly, the deceased committed suicide. It is submitted by the counsel for the

applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the concessional statement made by the counsel for the applicant that he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which

was allegedly taken by him from the deceased is concerned, the said submission cannot be accepted in the light of the order dated 19/1/2021 passed

by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of MP and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.53/2021 in which it has been held as

under:-

“5. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open to a Court to

grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into

consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the

nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the

complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

character behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the

State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent

to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.â€​

In view of the allegations that after getting a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- sanctioned in favour of the deceased, the applicant took an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

from him and thereafter refused to repay the same and at the same time, the bank officials were pressing hard for recovery of the loan amount, as a

result of which, the deceased committed suicide, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.