The main legal point established is that the court must consider the nature of charges, prima facie evidence, and the legislative mandate of S. 438, Cr. P. C. when granting anticipatory bail.

( 1 ) APPLICANT is seeking anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, in a private complaint case No. 40/2003, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, vijaypur, district Sheopure, for the offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of indian Penal Code. Earlier M. Cr. C. No. 2795/03 was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to appear before the trial court and to furnish bail, as he was summoned through bailable warrant.

( 2 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the offence un- under S. 467, I. P. C. though is triable by Magistrate First Class but is a non-cognizable and non-bailable offence and punishment of imprisonment of life or imprisonment of ten years and fine has been prescribed, therefore, the Magistrate First Class is not having jurisdiction to grant the bail in cases where sentence of imprisonment for life has been prescribed for a particular offence and if the applicant will appear even after issue of bailable warrant, he shall be arrested and shall be committed to prison. Additional sessions Judge, Sabalgarh has already rejected his anticipatory bail application.

( 3 ) IT is further contended that the applicant is a Patwari and respondent No. 2-complainant has filed a private complaint against this applicant along with two others on the ground that the land bearing Survey No. 104, admeasuring 5 bighas and 14 biswas, situated at Patwari Halka No. 20, village barakalan, Tehsil Vijaypur, District sheopure has been recorded as a Government land reserved for Government pond. Every year Government is auctioning this land and from 1997 complainant is taking the land in auction and cultivating but in the meantime the applicant and Naib tehsildar in connivance have granted Patta over this land to Adjuddibai w/o Ramratan. The Naib Tehsildar was not having any right to allot the Patta of the said land, as he was functioning as In-charge Tehsildar on that day. He has allotted this land with the connivance of the applicant who is Patwari and the applicant has not supplied copy of the patta or the allotment letter or the entries made in the revenue record to respondent no. 2, therefore, they have committed offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property causing wrongful loss to the State and it is a case of forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating.

( 4 ) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate has registered a private complaint and firstly directed issuance of bailable warrant and thereafter directed to issue warrant of arrest against the applicant. It was further submitted that this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to Yashendra Singh chouhan, who is the Naib Tehsildar and smt. Ajuddi Bai, who is the allottee of the land. It is further contended that prima facie no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 with 120-B, I. P. C. for cheating or dishonestly inducing the delivery of property or causing wrongful loss to the complainant or regarding forgery of valuable security or will or forgery for the purpose of cheating or criminal conspiracy is made out against the applicant. He has not granted any Patta. If he has made some entries in the revenue record, they have been made on the basis of the order passed by Naib Tehsildar. It is the government land and complainant is not having any interest and is also not having any locus standi to file the criminal complaint, as no offence is committed against the complainant.

( 5 ) MISS Sudha Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer, appearing for the respondent State opposed this application on the ground that this is second application for anticipatory bail, therefore, it is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) COPY of the criminal complaint has been produced on record. In the complaint, allegation of criminal conspiracy in granting Patta has been levied against the applicant and it has been stated that the Naib tehsildar with the connivance of t