IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA nd ON THE 2 OF AUGUST, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37517 of 2022 Between:-

MO. ZAFAR KHAN S/O ABDUL AZIZ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE M.G. ROAD MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BARWAHA DISRTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (AMAR SINGH RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BALWADA DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (PROXY COUNSEL SHRI VISMIT PANOT PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL)

This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 148/2022 registered at P.S. - Balwada District Khargone (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 465, 467, 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, complainant Sulochana had purchased the land in question from land owner Rajendra by registered sale deed dated 23.2.2016 for consideration of Rs. 11 lakhs, but thereafter co-accused Rajendra even after sale of the aforesaid land obtained agricultural loan amounting to Rs. 9 lakhs from Union Bank of India Branch Bagod. The co-accused Jitendra Pawar was the bank manager of the aforesaid bank, the present applicant is the practicing lawyer, he wrote title search report for the bank in relating to aforesaid land. Accordingly offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is practicing lawyer at Barwah and empanelled advocate with Union Bank of India and he has been writing search reports for the bank since 2013. He after going through Bhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika and other revenue records submitted the title search report to the bank on 9.4.2021, he has no knowledge that the property was sold by co-accused Rajendra to the complainant Sulochana. Because complainant did not get her mutation done in revenue records after purchasing the property in question hence her name is nowhere present in revenue records. Bhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika was isued only in the name of Rajendra. Hence the applicant has acted bonafidely and merely on the basis of suspicion he has been made accused in this offence. If the applicant is arrested his reputation will suffer irreperably and it will be of great detriment to his career.

Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

Per-contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.

Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order passed by the court below.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation it is revealed that the present applicant is the practicing lawyer, he is a member of Bar Association Badwah since 1992, it is alleged that on the basis of revenue records present applicant prepared the search report regarding the aforesaid land, applicant has submitted his reply before the police also, therefore, it appears that he is cooperating in the investigation. The apex court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao by order dated 21.9.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1460/2012 it has been held that liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the bank. In the given case, there is no evidence to prove that A-6 was abetting or aiding the original conspirators.

Hence this Court is of the consideration opinion that it is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case,