Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anuj Tandon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35296/2021
(Anuj Tandon vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 19.07.2021
Heard through videoconferencing.
Shri Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri R.K. Sharma, senior Advocate with Shri V.K. Agarwal and
Shri Praveen Surange, counsel for the complainant.
Heard on I.A. No.21161/2021, which is an application under
Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for permitting the learned counsel for the
complainant to assist the State counsel.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the State
counsel.
The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of bail. The applicant has been arrested by Police Station
Inderganj, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.495/2019
registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 120-B,
406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC.
It is alleged that the earlier application was rejected vide order
dated 29.04.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21154/2021 on wrong
presumptions treating it to be an anticipatory bail but actually it was the
application under Section 439. The second application has been filed
on the ground that the investigation is over in the matter and charge
sheet has been filed. He is in custody since 21.03.2021. As there is no
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35296/2021
(Anuj Tandon vs. State of M.P.)
further requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant,
he prays for grant of bail. It is further pointed out that looking to the
prosecution story, no case for offences under Sections 409, 420 is made
out against the present applicant. The prosecution has stated that the
applicant was present where ever the transactions used to take place.
Mere presence is shown. No other incriminating material is available to
implicate him for commission of offences. The prosecution has roped
up the small children in the case who are minor and not even able to
participate in the proceedings. The main accused are already in custody.
The entire matter is an outcome of a civil transaction as the
complainant has invested in the company and when the loss occurred
he has filed the complaint against the present applicant. As far as
signatures of the applicant appearing on the documents is concerned, it
is argued that according to the prosecution story as he was the agent
working in the company, therefore, he was required to sign some
documents on the instructions of the seniors and the true owners. But
he is not responsible for the deeds which have been done by the true
owners/directors. He could not be prosecuted in the capacity of a
Director of the company. Entire civil case is being given a colour of
criminal case just to fetch money from the present applicant and the
other co-accused. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions
that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to furnish the local
surety for grant of his bail.
Per contra, State counsel as well as the complainant have
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35296/2021
(Anuj Tandon vs. State of M.P.)
vehemently opposed the application stating that the earlier application
was considered in detailed and rejected on merits. But due to
typographical error application under Section 438 was mentioned
which was subsequently got corrected by the applicant himself by filing
a 482 petition being M.Cr.C.No.31304/2021 vide order dated
25.06.2021. It is submitted that only eight co-accused are still
absconding in the matter and they have not even applied for
anticipatory bail. The applicant is having two other cases registered of
similar nature at Crime No.64/2017, P.S. Subzi Mandi North District
and Crime No. 591/2014 registered at P.S. Anand Bihar, District Delhi
East. He is habitual of committing such offences. There are specific
allegations against the present applicant in showing his active
participation in commission of offence. As far as signatures of the
complainant are concerned, it is pointed out that although they are
digital signatures. But actual resignation letter which has been
submitted is a forged letter which has been prepared by the present
applicant and other co-accused. The applicant has signed as a witness
in all the documents which have been prepared by the other co-accused.
The Principal office of the company is also in the house of the present
applicant. He has not even followed the terms and conditions of the bail
orders on earlier occasion and has violated the same. It is further
pointed out that mere filing of charge sheet before the trial Court will
not absolve the applicant from its act committed by him for which he
has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.35296/2021
(Anuj Tandon vs. State of M.P.)
of Virupakshappa Gouda vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2017 SC
1685, wherein it is held mere filing of the charge sheet does not
materially alter the circumstances of the case entitling the petitioner to
bail. It is submitted that the other co-accused who are still absconding
in the matter are not even cooperating in the investigation. They have
not even bothered to file applications for seeking anticipatory bail. The
application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this Court
recently vide order dated 5.7.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.31384/2021
(Hariprasad vs. State of M.P.). In such circumstances, no case for bail
is made out. They have prayed for rejection of the application.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of
the case coupled with the fact that the other co-accused are still
absconding in the matter and not cooperating in the investigation
despite rejection of the bail applications of the applicant and other co-
accused on earlier occasions, this Court is not inclined to allow this
application. The application is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
van
SMT VANDANA
VERMA
2021.07.22
11:34:12 -07'00'
