SANJAY SINGH BHADAURIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first bail application u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.420 of IPC registered as Crime No.571/2013 at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior(M.P.). Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. Applicant who has no criminal antecedents apprehends arrest in respect of offence of cheating arising out of an incident of sale and purchase of land, which took place in 2011 where applicant posed as the seller on lad, which had earlier been mortgaged to secure a loan. The factum of cheating and forgery is yet to be established. However, proceedings u/S.82/83 are said to be pending against the applicant in which petitioner has not yet been declared as an absconder.

(2.) Though the FIR against the applicant does not disclose offence of cheating prima facie but the possibility of implicative evidence coming on record can not be ruled out. The police has not yet been able to complete investigation commenced since 2013 due to non-cooperation of the applicant as alleged by the prosecution. In view of above, this Court declines anticipatory bail to the applicant. However, looking to the fact that since the offence in question attracts punishment less than 7 years and therefore, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, It is directed that in offences involving punishment upto seven years imprisonment the police may resort to the extreme step of arrest only when the same is necessary and the applicant does not cooperate in the investigation. The applicant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation. If the applicant cooperates in the investigation then the occasion of his arrest should not arise. For ready reference and convenience the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) are enumerated below:-

(3.) The aforesaid order in regard to the appellant shall remain in force subject to their planting 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of appellant or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses. In case the appellant is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. The appellant shall file affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this Court may consider cancellation of bail. The senior most available learned Public Prosecutor of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through SHO of Police Station of the concerned area, disclosing as to whether the appellants have complied with the said condition or not, and if yes to what extent ?