Ritesh Arya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This second bail application has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of Cr.P.C.. The first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order

dated 23/03/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10320/2018.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali District Vidisha in connection with Crime No.623/2017 registered in relation to the offences

punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 r/w section 34 of the IPC.

According to the prosecution, on 4/9/2017, complainant Dr. B.L.Arya, CMHO, Vidisha lodged a written FIR stating that applicant Ritesh Arya was

posted in the Establishment Section of his Office. He submitted appointment letters of co-accused persons namely Suraj Jatav, Satyapal Singh, Aadhar

Singh, Shailesh Kumar, Rupesh Deshmukh and Ravi Kumar before him saying that their appointment letters were received through e-mails from the

Office of the Director Health Services, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal. Thereupon, he has issued their posting orders. When it came to his notice that the

Director had not issued appointment letters of accused persons, the applicant deleted the e-mails of their appointments from the office computer in

order to suppress his crime.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. According to him, the essential ingredients to constitute the

offences, as alleged, are not available in the FIR. Besides, appointment order has been issued by the higher authorities and only note-sheet has been

prepared by the clerk of the department, that too was approved by the higher authority. The present applicant was duty bound to comply with the

directions of his higher Authority and he has no role in issuance of appointment order. He has no connection with the alleged forgery. The only

allegation against him is that he was posted with the Establishment Branch of CMHO District Vidisha. CMHO in the written FIR has not levelled any

allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted that three FIRs were registered against the applicant as Crime Nos. 622/2017, 623/2017

and 624/2017 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Vidisha regarding alleged crime pertaining to same issue and in Crime Nos. 624/17 and 622/17,

the applicant has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 27/11/17 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 22384/2017 and 29/11/17 passed in M.Cr.C. No.

22383/2017. The applicant is a Government servant and if he continues in judicial custody, then his service career and life would be affected. With the

aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and

material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is further submitted that on earlier occasion also, the applicant had not

approached this Court with clean hands, inasmuch as, while approaching this Court for anticipatory bail in Crime Nos. 622/17 and 624/17, he had

suppressed vital information with regard to rejection of his anticipatory bail application by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crime No.623/17 since

all the three crime numbers relate to the same issue, as admitted by the applicant in paragraph 6.11 of the instant bail application. Therefore, in all

fairness, the applicant ought to have disclosed about rejection of his anticipatory bail applications (M.Cr.C. Nos.17116/17 & 1122/18) pertaining to

Crime No.623/17 while procuring order from this Court in Crime Nos. 622/17 (M.Cr.C. No.22383/17) and 624/17 (M.Cr.C. No.22384/17). It is further

submitted that even in this application, there is no whisper about rejection of M.Cr.C. Nos. 17116/17 and 1122/18.

In response, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was not supposed to disclose about rejection of M.Cr.C. Nos. 17116/17 and 1122/18 in

M.Cr.C. Nos. 22384/17 and 22383/17 under the M.P. High Court Rules, since they related to different crime numbers. It is further submitted that the

instant application being preferred under section 439, it is again not obligatory upon him to disclose about earlier 438 applications. However, in this

repeat bail application, he has submitted each and every details with regard to earlier bail applications.

After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that applicant was already released

on bail in other two crime numbers for which identical offences have been registered against the applicant. In the earlier applications, though details

with regard to M.Cr.C. No. 17116/2017 & M.Cr.C. No. 1122/2018 were mentioned, but there was no whisper about rejection of these bail

applications. However, the applicant has given the details of each and every case. In the present case, only on the ground of technicalities, the

application for bail cannot be rejected particularly when the applicant has already been released on anticipatory bail in exactly identical

matter, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

concerned trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

C.c. as per rules.