AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
This is first application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with a private complaint lodged by respondent no.1 registered at Criminal Case No.635/06 in respect of the offences punishable under sections 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he was involved in embezzlement of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by forging Government documents and misappropriating the wages payable to labourers.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated, in the case. A case had been registered against the complainant on the inspection report submitted by the present applicant at Crime No.6/99 at P.S. Karahal for the offence punishable under section 409 of the IPC and the present complaint is nothing but a counterblast of the same. No notice was ever served upon the applicant right from 25/6/02 till 4/3/2010 as is evident from the documents brought on record. The applicant has been transferred in the year 2000 to Chhattisgrah and, has never been served there with any notice or warrant. In this regard, attention has been invited to a certificate dated 20/7/19 issued by the Executive Engineer to the effect that applicant had given his joining in the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Raipur on 30/10/2000 and is presently working in the Office of Executive Engineer, PWD, Division No.1, Raipur. It is submitted that the applicant is working as a Superintendent Engineer and is in Government Service. There is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. An application under section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C for recall of non bailable warrant, is pending consideration. With the aforesaid submission, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.
In response, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the bail application and pray for its rejection. It is submitted that the case is pending since 2006 and on several occasions warrants have been issued against the present applicant, but could not be served due to incorrect address. Ultimately, on 9/4/10, he was declared as an absconder and perpetual warrant was issued against him. The applicant despite being aware has been deliberately avoiding the proceedings. As such, no indulgence is warranted.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
The application, therefore, stands rejected.