Sondeep Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

M.K. Mudgal, J.—Case diary is available.

This is first application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No. 403/2013, registered at Police Station Junnardeo, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as the alleged fake and fabricated document of bank guarantee was not prepared by the applicant. Learned counsel further pleads that the applicant instructed his employee namely Shoeb Sheikh for getting bank guarantee prepared from a bank. Thereafter bank guarantee a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- was sent by him through post to Western Coalfields Limited situated in District Chhindwara. Learned counsel further contends that during enquiry the said company found that the alleged bank guarantee is a fake and fabricated document, thereafter a report was lodged against the applicant on the basis of which criminal case under the aforesaid sections was registered against him. Learned counsel further submits that in similar circumstances, an anticipatory bail was granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench Nagpur, in Criminal Application No. 181/2014 vide order dated 9th May, 2014. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, submits that a contract was made by the applicant with Western Coalfields Limited for carrying the business of excavation of coal mines. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the aforesaid bank guarantee was submitted by the applicant which was found fake and fabricated document. In this manner the applicant not only cheated the Coal Company but also submitted a fake and forged document to the said Company, more over, he has prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Arguments were heard.

Scope of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been considered by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal etc., , as follows:

Section 438 Cr.P.C. makes special provision for granting "anticipatory bail" which was introduced in 1973. The expression "anticipatory bail" has not been defined in Cr.P.C. Anticipatory bail means a bail in anticipation of arrest. The expression "anticipatory bail" is a misnomer inasmuch as it is not as if bail presently granted is in anticipation of arrest. Where a competent court grants "anticipatory bail", it makes an order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail. The power of granting "anticipatory bail" is extraordinary in character and only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person is falsely implicated or a frivolous case is launched against him or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power may be exercised. Thus, the power is "unusual in nature" and is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial service i.e. a Court of Session and a High Court.

in the instant case, the alleged fake and forged bank guarantee was submitted by the applicant for making contract to the company, owing to which he is prima facie liable for it.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment cited above, this Court does not deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Hence, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.