Satyajeet Singh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Satyajeet Singh. The primary reasoning for this decision was based on the fact that the main co-accused, Vinod Kumar Gupta, had already been granted bail by the Court on December 18, 2018, in M.Cr.C. No. 49384 of 2018. The Court found that the terms on which the co-accused was granted bail were applicable to the present applicant. Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon depositing an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) under protest before the trial/committal court. Upon arrest, the applicant is to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the Magistrate. The applicant is also directed to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from committing similar offences. The warrant issued under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. will be withdrawn upon fulfillment of these conditions. The Court also stipulated several other conditions for the bail, including cooperation with the investigation, not inducing witnesses, not committing further offences, not leaving India without permission, and informing the authorities of any change in address.

Facts

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant, Satyajeet Singh, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (akin to Section 438 of Cr.P.C.). The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 633 of 2018, registered at Police Station Morwa, District Singrauli, for offences under Sections 420, 294, 506, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that in 2015, the applicant, along with a co-accused, fraudulently obtained Rs. 3,15,000/- from the complainant's friend by promising admission for the complainant's daughter in IGIMS Patna. The applicant contends that apart from this allegation and the memorandum of a co-accused, no other evidence exists. He has also cited several judgments in his support. The State, represented by the learned Government Advocate, submitted that more than one case has been registered against the applicant and his name is clearly mentioned in the FIR.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations of fraud and financial misappropriation, and the existence of a registered FIR against him? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is entitled to anticipatory bail. He highlighted that the primary allegation pertains to a fraudulent transaction of Rs. 3,15,000/-. He contended that there is a lack of substantial evidence against him beyond the FIR and the memorandum of a co-accused. The applicant relied on a compilation of judgments, including Asha Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Balveer Singh Bundela Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Harshvardhan Johari Vs. State of Rajasthan, and Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI, to support his claim for anticipatory bail, even though a proclamation and warrant had been issued. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State submitted that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that the complainant has clearly named the applicant in the FIR and that more than one case has been registered against him, suggesting a pattern of conduct.