0

Violating conditions under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C shall lead to cancellation bail bonds: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prima facie, it seems that the arrest of present applicant is not required to the police for investigating purpose but they may arrest him in compliance of arrest warrant issued by the trial Court due to nonpresence of the applicant while filing of charge-sheet. This was said in the case of Amar Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-21301-2021] by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

The facts of the case are that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a false case has been registered against the applicant whereas the applicant is not involved in the alleged offences. Intimation regarding filing of charge-sheet has not been given to applicant. The trial Court has issued the arrest warrant at the first instance without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indar Mohan Goswami & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Ors [(2007)12 SCC 1], submitting that the warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensure on issuance of warrants but the trial Court has directly issued the arrest warrant against the applicant. Besides the above, learned Senior counsel argued that investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed and no purpose would be serve to send the applicant behind the bars. An opportunity of hearing should have been given to the applicant prior to issuance of arrest warrant. There is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of prosecution

Per-contra, learned P.L. for respondent/State opposes the bail application submitting that applicant has committed serious crime and he is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

After perusing the contentions of both the parties, the Court said that “it appears that the applicant made as an accused in the case being proprietor of private godown where the government wheat was unloading. Charge-sheet has been filed in the case and the applicant is apprehending his arrest on the reason of his absence before the trial Court while filing of charge-sheet by the police. During investigation, the applicant has not been arrested by the police in compliance of Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. directing the applicant to remain present before the trial Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet. As per the prosecution, despite giving notice to the applicant, he did not appear before the trial Court and therefore the trial Court has issued arrest warrant against him. The learned Senior counsel for the applicant confronted the same relying upon the judgement and orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court submitting that at the first instance, arrest warrant should have not been issued by the learned trial Court. Summons could be issued against him”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court enlarged the applicant on bail.

Click here to read judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat