Sm. Rikubai vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The 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. In light of these facts, 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 herself available for interrogation as and when required and to abide by other conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Smt. Rikubai, is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case involves 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 are that while serving as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jinakhedah, the applicant was involved in significant GST tax evasion. Furthermore, it is alleged that she used a firm named Jeewan Traders, which was in her son's name, for the purchase of materials for the Gram Panchayat. The charge-sheet has been filed, and an arrest warrant has been issued against the applicant due to her non-appearance in the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, given that the charge-sheet has been filed and she has cooperated with the investigation, making custodial interrogation unnecessary? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends that the charge-sheet has already been filed and she cooperated during the investigation. Her absence from the trial court, leading to the arrest warrant, occurred only after the charge-sheet was filed. She had previously cooperated with a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, custodial interrogation is not required. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court's decision in *Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another* which suggests that summons should ordinarily be issued first after charge-sheet filing, followed by bailable warrants, and then arrest warrants. Arresting the applicant at this stage would serve no purpose as no recovery or discovery is to be made, and the trial is likely to be lengthy. Respondent's arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, citing serious allegations of financial irregularities against the applicant, and argues that no case for granting anticipatory bail is made out.