Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bilal Hussain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 MCRC-61081-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 61081 of 2021
(BILAL HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-12-2021
Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Akshay Pawar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Abhishek Gulatee, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Case diary perused.
This is the first application filed under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on behalf of applicant Bilal Husain.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.0283/2021,
registered at Police Station Doraha, District Sehore (M.P.) for the offences
punishable under sections 420, 120B, 409 of the IPC.
Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Rajesh is the Chairman
of M/s Fusion Infrastructure Private Limited Compnay, Indore. He entered
into an agreement with Smt. Jyoti Goyal to purchase the property situated in
Khasra No.244, 244/1, 240/2, 243/1/1 total area 11.20 acres at Village
Jharkheda, Tehsil Shyampur, District Sehore @ Rs.43,50,000/- per acre
through the present applicant Bilal Husain. The sale consideration of
Rs.3,49,00,000/- was paid to Smt. Jyoti Goyal, Anchit Goyal and the present
applicant through cheque and cash. After the sale consideration was received
by Jyoti Goyal, she executed a power of attorney in favour of the present
applicant on 11.07.2014 for registering her share i.e. 7 acres of land in the
name of the company. However, the present applicant got registered 3.25
acres whereas the complainant had told the present applicant to register 7
acres of land. Thereafter, the present applicant tried to avoid him and sold
half acre of land to colonel Ali out of the aforesaid land and also kept 3.25
acres of land in his own name, thereby committed cheating and fraud with the
complainant. On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is a
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Date: 2021.12.15 11:37:09 IST
2 MCRC-61081-2021
reputed person and has been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant
has given criminal colour to the dispute by converting civil dispute. No
offence under Sections 409, 420 of IPC is made out against the applicant.
The complainant does not say in his complaint that the applicant had obtained
money from him by playing fraud or cheating but he only wants his money
back. FIR has been filed on the order of the Magistrate in suppression of
earlier investigation by the police. The investigation is based on documents
which are in possession of the police and the applicant is not required for the
purpose of investigation. Applicant is ready t o cooperate in the
investigation. In view of COVID-19 outbreak, detention o f applicant in
already congested prisons may be detrimental. There is no likelihood of his
absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence if he is released on
anticipatory bail since he is permanent resident of District Bhopal (M.P.) and
is contesting civil litigation. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions
a s may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail is made.
In response, learned Panel Lawyer as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that on bare
reading of the FIR, it is found that the offence committed by the applicant. It
is not a case of false implication. Investigation is pending. Custodial
interrogation may be required. Counsel for the State has further submitted
that the powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the
Magistrate even before taking cognizance, in which case there is no
requirement of examining the complainant on oath. He relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
reported in (2021) 8 SCC 753, therefore, prayer for rejection of
anticipatory bail application is made.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival
Signature Not Verified
contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Date: 2021.12.15 11:37:09 IST
3 MCRC-61081-2021
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.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vc
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Date: 2021.12.15 11:37:09 IST
