ORDER

Apprehension of arrest has given rise to filing of this first application on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.729/2022 registered at Police Station Damoh (Rural), District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 370 of IPC, Sections 42, 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 3, 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant sanguinely submits that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR applicant has been fallaciously incriminated inasmuch as the allegations made against him or his related institution, are wholly baseless and in fact nothing but a fallacy. He accentuates that if the offfences registered against the applicant are seen, the only offence punishable under Section 370 of IPC is non-bailable, whereas rest ones are bailable. Focusing on the contents of FIR, he propounds that the allegations made therein run short of the required ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 370 of IPC and more precisely such offence is not made out at all. Taking strength from the documents made appendage to the application, learned senior counsel submits that it is clear that Section 4 of M.P. Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020 provides and specifies the categories about who can make a complaint to the police. He adds that under those categories, the complainant does not fall and as such complainant who is holding the post of Chairman of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has exceeded its jurisdiction while lodging the report to the police. He further submits that under the provisions of Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 the duties and powers of the said authority are enshrined, in that Section 13 bespeaks about the functions which can be performed by the authority under which he can inspect the institution, like which is run and controlled by the applicant and further Section 15 elucidates, on an inspection if any irregularities are detected, then the authority can take further steps or seek permission from the Supreme Court or High Court. He pinpoints that the authority cannot draw own inference directly or take any consequential action thereof. Vigorously, Shri Shekhar submits that offence under Section 370 of IPC is not made out inasmuch as there is no allegation made by any of the person or parents of any child that they have been forcibly immured or there was any characteristic indicating trafficking of a person. Paradoxically, when Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR complainant during the course of inspection found a child, aged about 17 years, participating in the process of becoming Padri, then he took away the child and for that act, according to learned senior counsel, the parents of that child made a complaint to Superintendent of Police and also filed a petition i.e. W.P.No.26435/2022 seeking for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to release the custody of child. He submits that the intermingled facts make it clear that the applicant is unnecessarily harassed by the authority whereas no offence is made out against him. So far as the allegation made against the institution namely Mid India Christian Services are concerned, as per learned senior counsel, the applicant is not related to it at all.

In contrast, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and submits that on the face of allegations made and irregularities noticed by the authority during the course of inspection, there is nothing wrong in informing the police about it. He submits that the investigation is still going-on and as such granting benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant would not be proper. Pointing towards the demeanour of applicant, he further submits that one case of Section 420 & 120-B IPC registered by EOW, Bhopal is also pending against the