(1.) BY this application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant Mohammed Arif has moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No. 185/2011 registered by police station Jeevajiganj, Distt. Ujjain for offence under Sections 420 & 475 of the IPC. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel for the applicant submits that initially the case was registered at Crime No. 4/2011 by Police Station Jeevajiganj, Ujjain for offence under Section 379 of the IPC along with Sections 41 and 102 of the IPC and the Magistrate was pleased to grant bail. However, after a period of seven and half months the offence has been enhanced to one under Sections 420 and 475 of the IPC. Counsel submits that although the offences have been registered at different numbers i.e. 4/2011 & 185/12 by the same Police Station Jeevajiganj, Ujjain, it is a continuation of the earlier offence since the same vehicle is involved in the later offence.
(2.) Placing reliance on Sayera Bi Vs. State of M.P., [2006 Cr.L.R. (MP) 262] and on Ramsewak and others Vs. State of M.P. [1979 Cri.L.J. 1485] to state that when bail has already been granted in the minor offence and the applicant has not misused the liberty granted to him, he was entitled to the same regarding the major offence also. So also relying on Ramsewak (supra), Counsel contended that when only the applicant feels there is an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested, this fact could be sufficient to attract the provision under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
(3.) ON considering the above submissions and placing reliance on Ramsewak (supra) whereby under similar circumstances, the Apex Court held that grant of anticipatory bail would not stand in way of committing the accused to the competent Court and in this light, I find that the application needs to be allowed. It is hereby allowed.