Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sheel Nagu, Anand Pathak, JJ.
Reena Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
M.C.R.C. 2287-2021
Decided On : 05-02-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.B.S. Tomar, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Praveen Newaskar, Learned ASGI

The importance of gravity of the offence, accused cooperating in investigation and trial, and the presumption of innocence are crucial factors in granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Offence of cheating and forgery - IPC 120-B, 109, 201, 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w Ss. 3/4 of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 - The court referred to the importance of gravity of the offence, accused cooperating in investigation and trial, and the presumption of innocence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's cooperation, and the absence of the need for custodial interrogation.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a woman aged about 36, sought anticipatory bail in connection with the offence of cheating and forgery, including appearing as a solver in PMT Exam 2009. The investigation was over, and the chargesheet had been filed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that custodial interrogation was not required as the investigation was over, and the petitioner had cooperated during the investigation. The court emphasized the importance of the gravity of the offence, the accused's cooperation in investigation and trial, and the presumption of innocence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's cooperation, and the absence of the need for custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's cooperation, and the absence of the need for custodial interrogation.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, including compliance with the bond, cooperation in the investigation/trial, and not leaving India without permission.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard through video conferencing.

2. This is first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner.

3. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with offence punishable u/ss. 120-B, 109, 201, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC., r/w Ss. 3/4 of M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 registered as Crime No. 138/13 at Police Station Jhansi Road District Gwalior.

4. The petitioner who is a woman aged about 36 apprehending her arrest in regard to the offence of cheating and forgery alongwith other peripheral offences with the allegation that petitioner appeared as a solver in PMT Exam 2009.

5. Reply of CBI does not reveal that petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation. Chargesheet in the matter has been filed on 05.12.2020 and investigation is therefore, over qua the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that co-accused Sanjay Bathan has suffered dismissal of his anticipatory bail application MCRC 3109/2021 on 29.01.2021 and therefore, prayer is made that petitioner should also be made to suffer the same fate as the co-accused.

7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the Investigating Agency that chargesheet in the matter has been filed and therefore custodial interrogation is not required.

8. Dismissal of bail application of co-accused Sanjay Batham may not adversely affect the prospects of petitioner because anticipatory bail application of co-accused which was rejected on 29.01.2021 was his second attempt after rejection of earlier one on merits. More so the said co-accused Sanjay Batham could not demonstrate any new ground in his repeat bail application. In case of petitioner, it is his first attempt and therefore, rejection of bail application of co-accused Sanjay Batham can be of no avail to the petitioner.

9. The principle laid down by Apex Court including the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694 and subsequent decisions not only emphasize the importance of gravity of offence but also the attribute of accused cooperating in investigation and trial as one of the persuading considerations while exercising jurisdiction u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, petitioner as is evident from reply of CBI has appeared as and when required during investigation. Thus, sending petitioner to custody in the given facts would be akin to punishing her for the offence which is yet to be established thereby violating the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence i.e. "presumption of innocence".

10. Among few important factors to be considered while deciding application for anticipatory bail are gravity of offence and also conduct of accused in cooperating in investigation and the prospects of doing so in future and also in trial. Apex court in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) in somewhat similar situation came to hold :-

"89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided.

90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. Whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject to limitation of section 437 Cr.P.C."

11. Said judgment has been referred with approval in subsequent decision of Apex Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Another (2016)1 SCC 152 and also in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (Nct of Delh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document