Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 804 (MP)

Mahesh Yadav v. State of Haryana

2003-07-02

S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2003
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest in connection with offences under section 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered vide FIR No. 413 dated 11.10.2002 by Police Station City Jind against the applicants in respect whereof non-bailable warrants collectively marked Annexure A-2 returnable by 26.11.2002 were issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate Jind. The petitioners contend that the complaint lodged is false and the Police of Haryana, on the threat of arresting and taking them in custody to Jind, had compelled them and their relatives to sign certain cheques about which a report had duly been made to the local Police. The petitioners submit that looking to the conduct and attitude of the police, they apprehend that police will any time arrest them and maltreat them. 2. The complainant-objector Prem Chand s/o Golu Ram has filed objection in writing. He has submitted that all the applicants purchased buffaloes against promise to pay the balance amount within a stipulated time but did not pay the amount with the result a report was made to the police and Crime No. 413/2002 under sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against them at the Police Station, Jind City, Haryana. According to the complainant, the police of Jind City Haryana visited Jabalpur to arrest the applicants but the applicants concealed themselves to evade arrest. Objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has also been raised. 3. In response to the notice, the Police Officer of respondent No.1 Police Station Jind City has appeared and informed that case has already been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. The said case Criminal Case No. 261/03, is fixed for 12.8.2003 and proclamation has been issued against the applicants-accused as they could not be arrested pursuant to the warrant issued against them. 4. The question with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an application under section 438 of the CrPC in respect of offence registered/committed within the jurisdiction of Court other than Court under whose jurisdiction arrest is apprehended was considered by this Court in Sachindra Mahawar v. State of M.P [ 2000 CrLJ 637 ]. 4. The question with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an application under section 438 of the CrPC in respect of offence registered/committed within the jurisdiction of Court other than Court under whose jurisdiction arrest is apprehended was considered by this Court in Sachindra Mahawar v. State of M.P [ 2000 CrLJ 637 ]. The learned Single Judge after taking into account the decision of a Division Bench in Kailash Pati Kedia v. State of Maharashtra [ 1996 JLJ 363 = 1996 MPLJ 847 ] observed: "In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that an order can be passed by the Court where arrest is apprehended by the accused to pass an ad interim order with a direction to move the competent Court where the offence has been registered or committed. This appears to be a balanced view and would be within the parameters of law. I may humbly state here that the Division Bench of this Court has taken this view and I am in respectful agreement with the same, and hence, the prayer by the Government Advocate for a reference to a larger Bench does not merit consideration. However, I may add that the application for grant of bail would depend upon the nature of allegations made against the accused. It would be incumbent on the accused to satisfy the Court that he permanently resides within the territory of the State and there is imminent danger of he being arrested. There should be no cloud about his domicile and cognizance shall not be taken of temporary abode. The apprehension must be real and it must be indicative of the fact that it cannot brook any delay and situation warrants emergent attention. The application of the accused should allude to the relevant facts so that the Court would be in a position to appreciate the facts in proper perspective and be in a position to exercise discretion. That apart jurisdiction should not be exercised in a routine manner or for the asking." 5. In the present case, what is clearly discernible is the intention of the applicants to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court having jurisdiction over the matter and what they seek is only a protective order to enable them to seek orders from the Court having jurisdiction. In the present case, what is clearly discernible is the intention of the applicants to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court having jurisdiction over the matter and what they seek is only a protective order to enable them to seek orders from the Court having jurisdiction. A protective order for short duration to enable the applicants to approach the Court having jurisdiction would therefore subserve the ends of justice. I am therefore, inclined to grant then anticipatory bail of limited duration. The applicant are, therefore, grantee anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks from today. If during this period the applicants are arrested in connection with the above offences, the officer arresting them shall release them on bail for the above duration on each of them furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) and executing, personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Officer making the arrest. The applicants may approach the appropriate Court within the above period of three weeks.