MCRC/50225/2020 of SANJAY BATHAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.50225/2020

Sanjay Batham Vs. State of M.P. & another Gwalior, Dated : 31.12.2020

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for respondentNo.1/State.

Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Assistant Solicitor General forrespondent No.2/CBI.

Matter is heard through video conferencing.

The applicant has filed this 2[nd] application u/S. 438 of Cr.P.C. forgrant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.RC2172015S0105 (previously 138/2013), registered at Police StationJhansi Road, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable u/Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the M.P.Recognized Examination Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant – SanjayBatham that this is the 2[nd] repeat application under Section 438 ofCr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Earlier application filed by theapplicant u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. was rejected on merits by this Court videorder dated 29/06/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.2092/2015. It is furthersubmitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this secondanticipatory bail application before this Court is maintainable in thelight of judgments passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Centra Bureau of Investigation [(2012) 1 SCC 40], Imratlal Vishwakarmaand Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh [1996 MPLJ 662] andSushila Agarwal Vs. NCT of Delhi [(2020) 5 SCC 1]. It is alsosubmitted that in the light of judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the applicant is entitled for grant ofanticipatory bail.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that theapplicant had appeared before the CBI as per direction and he wasinterrogated and sample of his hand writing was also taken by the CBI,but applicant had not been arrested. Now charge-sheet has been filed on05/12/2020 and investigation is complete, therefore, there is no need ofcustodial interrogation of the applicant. It is further submitted thatalleged offences are exclusively triable by Sessions Court, therefore incase applicant appears before the Magistrate Court, then the MagistrateCourt will not be within its jurisdiction to consider the application forgrant of bail and the applicant will unnecessarily suffer incarceration.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant ofanticipatory bail to the applicant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposedthe application and has submitted that first anticipatory bail applicationfiled by the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits.Therefore, the present repeat application for grant of anticipatory bail isnot maintainable. It is further submitted that this Court has also rejectedthe anticipatory bail application of co-accused Dr. Amit Kumar Yadavon merits vide order dated 21/10/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.31577/2020 and the present applicant is on same footing. Hence,looking to the gravity of offence, prays for rejection of present repeatanticipatory bail application of the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC andconsidered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.

Earlier application filed by the applicant u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. wasrejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 29/06/2015 passed inM.Cr.C. No.2092/2015. Hence, looking to the aforesaid facts andcircumstances of the case and gravity of the alleged offences, this Courtdoes not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this second repeat anticipatory bail application ishereby rejected.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(Sheel Nagu)

V. Judge

Shubhankar*

SHUBHANKAR MISHRA 2020.12.31 17:40:31 +05'30'

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)

V. Judge