Dashrath Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 300 MP

                                                                       1
            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MCRC.3085.2021.
                (Dashrath Singh Vs. State of M.P.).

GWALIOR; dated 27.02.2021.

       Shri Ankur Tiwari, learned counsel, for the applicant.

       Shri B.S.Gaur, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Shri S.N.Dubey, counsel for the complainant.

Heard on I.A. No. 6760/2021, an application under Section

301(1) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the PL during hearing of the matter.

For the reasons mentioned therein, the same is hereby allowed.

Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the PL

during hearing.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is first bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant

for grant of bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime

No.10/2021, registered by police station Huzrat Kotwali, District

Gwalior, in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467

and 468 of IPC.

It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that

applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has not

committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that the

allegations against the present applicant is that by playing fraud in

connivance with the other co-accused Sunil Jain, he has sold the

property in question to the complainant vide registered sale deed dated

12.04.2012 for consideration of Rs.7,32,000/-. It is submitted that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.3085.2021.

(Dashrath Singh Vs. State of M.P.).

property in question belongs to the applicant and power of attorney with

respect to the land was granted to the Sunil Jain by present applicant.

Applicant has demonstrated all the documents to the complainant at the

time of execution of sale deed. The complainant being satisfied with the

documents, has got executed the sale deed dated 12.04.2012 and the

possession of the property was handed over to the complainant. It is

pertinent to mention here that the complainant is still in possession of

the property in question. After lapse of 8 years from the date of

execution of the sale deed and complainant being remained in the

possession of the property in question, has filed the complaint that the

property in question has been sold to him by playing fraud and

suppressing the material information that the property was already sold

to some another person. For long eight years, the complainant kept

mum and enjoyed the property, now with an ulterior motive, the

complaint has been made. He is ready to abide by all the terms and

conditions as may be imposed by this Court. The applicant has shown

his willingness to furnish bank sureties by which the sale deed has been

executed for which an affidavit has also shown and filed along with the

bail application. It is submitted that the proceedings are of civil nature

and they have been given the colour of criminal case by the

complainant. The applicant has furnished an undertaking duly supported

by his affidavit that he is ready to furnish bank surety of Rs.7,32,000/-.

Co-accused Sunil Jain has already been released on anticipatory bail

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.3085.2021.

(Dashrath Singh Vs. State of M.P.).

vide order dated 27.1.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2860 of 2021. Upon

these grounds, he prays for bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as complainant

have opposed the bail application stating that the fraud have been played

by the present applicant as well as other co-accused with the

complainant knowing well that the property in question has already

been sold to some other person by making of forged documents. The co-

accused sold the property to applicant also. It is submitted that the

investigation is pending in the matter. Offences under Sections 420,467

and 468 of IPC have been registered against the present applicant which

is punishable upto life imprisonment. In such circumstances, they have

prayed for dismissal of the bail application. They have further relied

upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dilip Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.in Cr.A No. 53/2021,wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "A criminal Court,

exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to

act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant,and that

too,without any trial."It is argued that merely by furnishing the bank

guarantee the applicant and other co-accused cannot exclude themselves

from the act which they have committed. In such circumstances, they

have prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

From perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the sale deed was got

executed on 12.04.2012, wherein the applicant has sold the sale deed

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.3085.2021.

(Dashrath Singh Vs. State of M.P.).

with the consent of co-accused Sunil Jain who has a witnessed and has

given to consent to sale the property in question. Applicant is the owner

of the property. The sale deed was got executed far back in the year

2012, no complaint at the relevant time was made by the complainant.

The complainant is in possession of the property and is holding the

property till date. Now an allegation has been levelled after eight years

that the property is sold by fraud. At the time of the purchasing of the

property, all formalities and precautions must have been taken by the

complainant prior to purchasing the property. In these circumstances,

this Court is inclined to allow the bail application coupled with the fact

that when the undertaking and affidavit has been given by the applicant

that he is ready to furnish the bank guarantee for the amount for which

the sale deed has been executed, and considering the fact that co-

accused Sunil Jain has already been granted the benefit of anticipatory

bail as stated herein above, this application is allowed subject to

furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs.7,32,000/-(Rs. Seven Lac and

Thirty Two Thousand only). It is hereby directed that in the event of

arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal

bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction

of Investigation Officer / trial Court, as the case may be with submission

of written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of

different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by Central

Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.3085.2021.

(Dashrath Singh Vs. State of M.P.).

maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus

(COVIC-19) pandemic and he will has to install Arogya Setu App, if

not already installed.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the

following conditions by the applicant:-

1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and

7. The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the concerning Police Station in first week of every month till the completion of investigation and after filing of charge sheet as per the directions given by the learned trial Court.

8. The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.

Application stands allowed and disposed of.

E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for

compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

                                                                (Vishal Mishra)
Rks.                                                                Judge

       RAM KUMAR SHARMA
       2021.02.27 17:41:46
       +05'30'