Ram Prasad Rathore vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary. It noted that the applicant had previously been issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and had cooperated during the investigation. Crucially, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the Court found that custodial interrogation of the applicant did not appear necessary at this juncture. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicant was also directed to make himself available for interrogation as and when required and to abide by other conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The ratio decidendi is that once a charge-sheet is filed and the accused has cooperated with the investigation, anticipatory bail may be granted if custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary.

Facts

The applicant, Ram Prasad Rathore, a former Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Jinakhedah, sought anticipatory bail. He apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 105/2021 registered at Police Station Chandrawatiganj, District Indore, for offences under Sections 420, 406, 407, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involve significant GST tax evasion and the use of a firm, Jeewan Trader's, in his son's name for Gram Panchayat material purchases. The charge-sheet has been filed, and an arrest warrant was issued after the applicant failed to appear in the trial court. The applicant had previously cooperated with the investigation after receiving a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, given that a charge-sheet has been filed and he has cooperated with the investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant cooperated during the investigation. He contended that custodial interrogation is not required at this stage, as no recovery or discovery is to be made from the applicant. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, which outlines the procedure for issuing summons and warrants after charge-sheet filing. The counsel also argued that arresting the applicant would serve no purpose as the trial is likely to be lengthy. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made against the applicant, and therefore, no case for granting anticipatory bail is made out.