ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the moot question that arises for consideration is whether an application of this nature is maintainable when a Court taking cognizance on a complaint or a prosecution report in respect of non-bailable offence issues summons to the accused.

(2.) The facts as have been unfurled are that, the State of M. P. through Forest Range Officer, North Lamta (General), Northern Forest Division, Distt. Balaghat filed a criminal complaint under Section 190(c) of the Code for offences punishable under Sections 26(1)(Ga)(Cha), 41(2)(Kha)(Ga)(Gha), 42 and 69 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 and under Rules 23 and 29 of M. P. Vanopaj Abhiyan Gaman Niyam 1961 and under Section 4 of M. P. Kast Chiran (Viniyaman) Act, 1984 as well as under Sections 379, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat wherein it was registered as criminal case No. 105/99. After its registration the learned Magistrate applied his mind and issued summons to the petitioner and other six accused persons.

(3.) After receiving the summons as the petitioner had a reasonable apprehension that if he appears before the Court, he would be taken into custody and would face humiliation and be tortured, he filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail in the Court of Session at Balaghat, which was dealt with by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat. The learned Sessions Judge after taking note of the fact came to hold that as summons had been issued the petition was not entertainable. That apart, he also noticed various other aspects to reject the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this application for grant of anticipatory bail.