Satyanarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2722 MP

           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       M.Cr.C. No. 12346/2021
                     Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P.
                                -: 1 :-

Indore, dated : 26.06.2021
      Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Akash Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
                              ORDER

This is Second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by applicant who has been arrested by Police on 30.01.2020 in a Crime No.269/2017, Police Station Kanadiya, District Indore under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C.

2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.25246/2020 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the applicant is the main perpetrator and the sole beneficiary of the crime and he remained absconding considerably long period and finally he has no parity with the other co-accused who have been granted bail.

3. As per the prosecution story, Savitri Bai was owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.840/1/2 area 1.831 hectare (4.524 acre). Whereabouts of Savitri Bai was not known to anyone. This applicant took advantage of the said situation got prepared power of attorney in his name by impersonating Bhagwanti Bai to Savitri Bai and thereafter sold the entire land to Brilliant Sare Relity Private Limited for consideration of Rs. 1,10,55,000/-. The FIR was registered in the year 2017 but this applicant remained absconding and arrested on 30.01.2020. There are as many as six accused in this case and except applicant all have been granted bail either by Apex Court, this court as well as trial court. The details are as under:

(I) Salgram S/o Sidhanath Kalota has been granted regular by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal (Crl) No.2118/2020 by its order dated 27.05.2020.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12346/2021 Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P.

(II) Bholashankar S/o Savant Ji Mandloi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.13532/2018 by order dated 18.06.2018. (III) Babulal S/o Hate Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.10916/2018 by order dated 15.05.2018.

(IV) Prabhulal Kalota has been granted anticipatory bail by the lower court in B.A.No.455/2018 by its order dated 19.02.2018.

(V) Prem Singh @ Prem Narayan S/o Salagram has been granted regular bail by the lower Court in B.A.No.5211/2019 by its order dated 17.12.2019. (VI) Bhagwanta Bai has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.765/2021 by order dated 22.02.2021.

4. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is aged about 60 years. The trial will take sufficient time to its conclusion. The maximum sentence for all the charges is not more than 7 years. The Police could not locate the Savitri Bai till date. One Civil suit is pending before the civil court challenging the said sale deed in which also the Savitri Bai is not appearing.

5. Vide order dated 10.05.2021, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has made a query that who has withdrawn the amount of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- paid as sale consideration. Shri Dave fairly submits that this applicant who sold the land, has received the aforesaid amount from the purchaser. The Savitri Bai sold the land by way of power of attorney and in turn, he has further sold to the Brilliant Sare Relity Private Limited. The registered sale deed cannot be termed as a forge sale deed in light of judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Mohammed Ibrahim and ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 751. He has further placed reliance over the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, in which the Apex Court has laid down the certain conditions for grant of bail to the accused.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 12346/2021 Satyanarayan Vs. State of M.P.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application by submitting that all these grounds have been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the bail application on 07.08.2020. Except to the fact that one co-accused has been granted bail, there is no change of circumstances in this case. The case of Bhagwanta Bai is altogether different from the case of the applicant. The allegation against Bhagwanta Bai is that she impersonated herself as Savitri Bai and executed the power of attorney in the favour of this applicant. The learned Panel Lawyer has read out the statement of Bhagwanta Bai under Section 27 of Evidence Act in which she has stated that she an is illiterate lady and this applicant took her to the court and got her thumb impression on blank papers for taking loan from bank. She was not aware that her thumb impression has been obtained for the purpose of power of attorney. The applicant is a main conspirator in this case, who got prepared a forge power of attorney, executed the sale deed and received the amount Rs. 1,10,55,000/-.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary(Challan).

8. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the challan, this court is of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail as there is no change of circumstances in this case after rejection of first bail application vide order dated 07.08.2020.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen/-

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2021.06.28 20:02:25 +05'30'