Rikubai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

They are heard. Perused the case-diary.

T his is applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.105/2021 registered at Police Station Chandrawatiganj, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 407 and 120-B of IPC.

The allegation against the applicant is that he was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jinakhedah at the relevant time wherein huge GST tax has been evaded and also that in the purchase of the material for the Gram Panchayat, he has used the firm Jeewan Trader's which was in his son's name.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge-sheet in the present case has already been filed and the applicant has cooperated during the investigation and it is only when the charge-sheet was filed, he could not mark his presence in the trial Court and the arrest warrant issued against him. It is also submitted that the applicant was earlier issued a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and has given his full cooperation during the course of investigation and thus, it is submitted that his custodial interrogation at this stage is not required.

I n support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773 wherein it is also held that after filing of charge-sheet ordinarily summons has to be issued at the first instance and thereafter bailable warrants may be issued in case of non appearance and finally the arrest warrants can also be issued if the accused does not appear, even after issuance bailable warrants.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that no purpose would be served to arrest the applicant at this stage as the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time and no recovery or discovery is to be made from the applicant. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed.

Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made against the applicant. Thus, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Having considered rival submissions, and on perusal of the case-dairy and considering the fact that earlier the applicant was given a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and has cooperated during the investigation and charge-sheet has already been filed and at this juncture, custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear necessary.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.21304/2023 stands allowed.

Certified copy, as per rules.