Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satnam Singh Randhawa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-50522-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-50522-2020
(SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 29-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth Datt,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Case dairy perused and argument heard.
This is the third application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The
applicant has been arrested on 07.10.2016 in connection with Crime
No.8/2016 registered at Police Station STF, Distt. Bhopal for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 6
of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 3,4,5 and 6
of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978.
Earlier two bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merits
by this Court vide orders dated 7/1/2019 & 19/10/2020 passed in MCrC
Nos.28215/2017 and 16655/2020.
As per prosecution case, on the complaint of Rambhushan
Raghuwanshi, police registered Crime No. 8/2016 at Police Station STF,
Distt. Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406,409 and
120-B of the IPC , Section 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka
Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,2000, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation
(Banning) Act, 1978 against the applicant and other co-accused. The general
allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons are that the
applicant, who was Director of the GN gold, GN Dairies and G.N.D. India
limited company, sold the financial products of the companies to the general
public through their agents assuring them of high returns upon their
Signature Not Verified
SAN
investments after maturity periods. However, he did not pay the money after
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.06.30 16:41:07 IST
2 MCRC-50522-2020
the maturity periods. On the other hand, they closed down the office of the
company, fled away and misappropriated the money of innocent people.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He further submitted
that the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant only for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the IPC and Section 3
& 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000.
The maximum sentence prescribed in these offences is up to 7 years. He
further submitted that in this case, the applicant was arrested on 7/10/2016
and till today, the applicant is in custody and trial has not concluded yet. He
has undergone detention for a period which is more than one-half of the
maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences for which he has
been charged. So, looking at the provisions of Section 436(A) of the CrPC,
the applicant is entitled to get bail, therefore, he be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that
the applicant played fraud upon the innocent investors. Sufficient evidence is
available on record to connect the applicant with the offence in question.
Other offences are also registered against the applicant. He further submitted
that though learned trial court framed charge under Section 406 of IPC but in
that case charge under Section 409 of IPC is made out against the applicant
and under Section 409 of IPC maximum sentence prescribed is life
imprisonment so provisions of Section 436 (A) of CrPC is not attracted in
the case. Even otherwise, under Section 436 (A) of CrPC, it is the discretion
of a Judge to grant bail or not and the trial court rightly rejected the
applicant's bail application. So, applicant should not be released on bail.
Earlier two bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on
merits by this Court vide orders dated 07.01.2019 & 19.10.2020 passed in
M.Cr.C.Nos.28402/2018 & 16655/2020, thereafter there is no change in
circumstances except the period of detention. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
Signature Not Verified
SAN
o f Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.06.30 16:41:07 IST
3 MCRC-50522-2020
Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted
solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to
conduct the defence. Apex court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad,
(2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "it is true that successive bail applications are
permissible under the changed circumstances. But, without the change in the
circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review
of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has
been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001)
1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.
"Provisions of 436A of code of criminal Procedure Code reads as
thus:-
[436A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be
detained. Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or
trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for
which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments
under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of
the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that
law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without
sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of
such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release
him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties: Provided
further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of
investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of
imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation. In
computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the
period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused
shall be excluded.]
From bare perusal of the provisions of Section 436(A) of the code of
Criminal Procedure, it is apparent that Court may, for reasons to be recorded
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.06.30 16:41:07 IST
4 MCRC-50522-2020
by it in writing, order the continued detention of accused for a period longer
than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that
offence under that law for which accused has been charged.
The police also filed charge-sheet against the applicant under Section
409 of IPC in which the maximum sentence specified is life imprisonment.
Though, learned trial court did not frame charge under Section 409 of IPC
against the applicant and framed charge under Section 406 of IPC and
rejected the applicant’s application filed under Section 436 (A) of IPC on
the ground that charge under Section 406 of IPC has been framed against the
applicant for 262 counts. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the police also filed charge-sheet against the applicant under
Section 409 of IPC in which the maximum sentence specified is life
imprisonment, the reasons assigned by the learned trial court for rejecting the
applicant's application filed under Section 436 (A) of CrPC cannot be said to
be wrong.
It is alleged that the applicant who was the Director of the GN gold,
GN Dairies and G.N.D. India limited company sold the financial products of
the companies to the general public through their agents assuring them of
high returns upon their investments after maturity periods. However, he did
not pay the money after the maturity periods. On the other hand, he closed
down the office of the company, fled away and misappropriated the money
of innocent people and embezzled crores of rupees of innocent people. So,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant Hence, the bail
application is dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
(ra)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.06.30 16:41:07 IST
