Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 144 (MP)

Archana v. State of M. P.

2003-01-22

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
JUDGMENT Accused applicant has filed this application under section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as she apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No. 254/02, registered at Police Station Palasia, Indore, for the offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 IPC. The aforesaid offences have been registered on the basis of a report lodged by the Manager, State Bank of India (Evening Branch) Palasia, Indore, that one Anil Saraf opened a Joint Savings Bank Account (No. 01190019648) along with his wife (applicant herein) in the said Branch of the Bank. On 18.4.2002, Shri Anil Saraf deposited two cheques for a sum of Rs. 77,90,500/- and Rs. 86,40,900/- which were to be cleared from the State Bank of India, Baroda Branch. The cheques were also taken by the accused himself for collection. Subsequently, the Indore branch received an advice from Baroda branch through courier regarding encashment of those cheques and on 4.5.2002, Anil Saraf, San deep Karnik and one Vikas Joshi tried to collect a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- through withdrawal form and Rs. 10,00,000/- through cheque from the said account, against the said credit advice. Looking to the huge amount involved in both cheques, the Bank officers were cautious and as such they were constantly in touch with Baroda Branch of the Bank. Later on, they received a telephonic information from Shri Deshpande, Chief Manager, Baroda Branch objecting its encashment as there is no balance in the account from which cheques have been issued and both the accused persons while collecting money from the Bank on the basis of forged credit advice were cautht red handed. It was also informed by Shri Deshpande that they have not sent any payment advice to the Branch. Thus, from the facts of the case, it is clear that Anil Saraf with the help of other persons tried to commit an offence of cheating with the Bank for a heavy amount and further committed an offence of cheating and forgery amounting to more than Rs. 1.5 crores by presenting forged advice, cheques and withdrawal form. The submission of Shli Jaisingh, counsel for the applicant is that there is no allegation against the applicant to connect her with the crime in question. 1.5 crores by presenting forged advice, cheques and withdrawal form. The submission of Shli Jaisingh, counsel for the applicant is that there is no allegation against the applicant to connect her with the crime in question. He further submits that challan has been filed in this case and that the co-accused persons namely, Praveen Jain and Balmukund have already been granted regular bail by this Court. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of Gurbaksh Singh, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632 and also on decisions reported in 1982 CrLJ Vol.-II, NOC 57 and 1986 ( 1 ) Crimes 207, he vehemently prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. In reply, learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submitted that though the charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is absconding. He further submits that looking to the facts that the account in question is a joint one through which offences of cheating and forgery were committed and the amount involved in the whole affair is a huge one and also in view of her conduct, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. It was further submitted that the main accused persons in this case are in custody and the Court has only granted bail to messengers rather than the co-accused persons. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and also considered the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail. As per prosecution story, the offences alleged against the applicant are of very serious nature inasmuch as the applicant and her husband are facing charges of cheating and forgery to withdraw valuable security from the· bank involving a huge amount of more than Rs. 1.5 crores. In this case the applicant wife is equally responsible for opening a joint account in the Bank. In this case though the charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is absconding, thus, she is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail merely on the ground that she is a woman or simply a joint account holder. In Gurbaksh Singh's case (supra), the apex court has held that in an application for anticipatory bail made to the High Court or to the Court of Sessions, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case is made out for grant of such relief. In Gurbaksh Singh's case (supra), the apex court has held that in an application for anticipatory bail made to the High Court or to the Court of Sessions, it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case is made out for grant of such relief. While deciding such applications, the High Court may exercise its judicial discretion on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, looking to the seriousness of the charges and also the fact that though the applicant is absconding, she has filed this application belatedly long after filing of the charge sheet, her case becomes more fatal. Therefore, looking to the conduct of the applicant and the nature of the offences alleged against her, I do not find any ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Thus, after considering the facts and features of the case, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.