Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dashratha Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.27064/2021
(DASHRATH SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF M.P.)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 21/06/2021
Shri A.K.Ahirwar, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the State.
Case diary is available.
This second repeat application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime
No.40/2021 registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior for
offence under Sections 420 and 34 of of IPC.
This bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of bail. Although, the office has pointed out the default
in the bail application as the applicants did not give the details of the
previous bail application, but instead of praying for time, the counsel
for the applicants directly started arguing the matter on merits and did
not stop his arguments and accordingly, this Court was left with no
other option but to hear the counsel for the applicants on merits.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that while
deciding the first bail application, this Court has referred incorrect
facts. This Court has also not considered the judgments relied upon
by the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants had sold
the same land, which was purchased by them and, therefore, it is
2
incorrect to say that the possession of some other land was given
instead of the mentioned in the sale deed. It is further submitted that
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the cases of such
nature are of civil in nature, and therefore, they should not be given
the colour of criminal case.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Paragraph 6.1 of the bail application reads as under:-
^^;gfd] fnukad 31-03-2021 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
n~okjk ikfjr vkns'k esa okLrfodrk dk ys[k u dj vU; rF;ksa
dk gokyk nsdj vkosnu fujLr dj fn;k x;k] vfHk;kstu
n~okjk crk;s x, fookfnr lEifRr ds ckjs esa vkosndx.k n~okjk IykV
[kjhndj edku cukuk crk;k x;k Fkk tcfd tks IykV vkosnd us
[kjhnk Fkk mls cSad yksu ds ek/;e ls mlus cuok;k Fkk vkSj mlh
cus gq, edku dks gh vkosndx.k us cspk gSa] dksbZ vU;
[email protected]@Hkweh dk fodz; ugha fd;k x;k gSa] vkosndx.k n~okjk
cSad esa jftLVªh j[k dj yksu fy;k x;k Fkk] mDr J.k lac/kh J.k
iqfLrdk dh izfr ,usDtj A-2 gSa vkSj mijksDr of.kZr Hkweh ij gh
edku cuk;k Fkk rFkk cSad dh fdLrs le; ij u Hkj ikus ds dkj.k
edku fodz; fd;k x;k Fkk] mijksDr dksyksuh ,oa losZ uacjku dh
Hkweh ds ckjs esa blh rjg ds izdj.kksa dks flfoy uspj dk ekuus okys
nks vkns'k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k vkosndx.k n~okjk ekuuh;
egksn; ds le{k izLrqr fd, Fks ftudk gokyk u nsdj vkosndx.k
dk vkns'k [k+kfjt dj fn;k tcfd mDr nksuksa vkns'k
(mcrc/39757/2019 rYosanz dne fo:) e-iz-'kklu ,oa
mcrc/45919/2019 lhrkjke cukQj fo:) e-iz-'kklu½ dk ykHk
vkonsdx.k dks fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk] rFkk ekuuh; U;k;ky;
n~okjk cksMZ ij tekur vkonsu Lohdkj fd, tkus dk ekSf[kd vkns'k
Hkh fd;k Fkk] tcfd vkosndx.k dk izdj.k lekurk ds vk/kkj ij
Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSaA**
It is really unfortunate that the applicants have come up with
3
the case by alleging that their previous bail application was rejected
on facts, which are otherwise different from the facts of this case. It is
submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the possession of the
same land was given, which was sold by the sale deed whereas, it is
the case of the complainant that when removal of encroachment
proceedings were initiated, then the complainant came to know that
although the applicants had sold the different land but they gave
possession of some other land which is a Government land.
The first bail application was rejected by considering the same
facts. It cannot be said that the first bail application was rejected on
the facts other then the facts of this case.
It is next contended by the counsel for the applicants that the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Talvendra Kadam
Vs. State of M.P. by order dated 01/10/2019 in MCRC
No.39757/2019 and in the case of Sitaram Banafar (Jatav) Vs.
State of M.P. by order dated 03/12/2019 in MCRC No.45919/2019
has held that the allegations are of civil in nature.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
applicants.
Whenever the applications are decided, then this Court tries to
avoid giving conclusive findings so that it may not prejudice the trial.
However, by making an allegation that this Court did not consider the
submissions of the counsel for the applicants that the dispute is of
4
civil in nature, has invited the findings of this Court.
The allegations against the applicants are that they had
executed a sale deed of a different land but gave the possession of
Government land, which was different. The sale deed was executed
in respect of survey No.858/1, 858/2 whereas possession of survey
No.840, which is Government land, was given. By no stretch of
imagination, it can be said to be a dispute of civil in nature.
As no case is made out for taking a contrary view in the matter.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Pj'S/-
PRINCEE
BARAIYA
2021.06.22
11:34:20 -07'00'
