Munindra @ Muninder vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 397 MP

                                                                      1                            MCRC-5974-2021
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    MCRC-5974-2021
                                                  (MUNINDRA @ MUNINDER Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                 Jabalpur, Dated : 02-03-2021
                                         Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar, Advocate for

                                 the applicant.
                                         Shri Anand Nayak, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is fifth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of

bail. Applicant Manindra @ Muninder Likhare was arrested on 04/07/2018 in connection with Crime No.150/2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Sehore (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon ke Hiton ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000.

T h e first and fourth bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 26/11/2018 and 30.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.33796/2018 and M.Cr.C. No.38257/2019 and second and third bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

01/03/2019 & 08/05/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.40/2019 & 12877/2019.

The general allegations against applicant Munindra @ Muninder Likhare and co-accused persons, who were the Director, Manager, Employee and Agent of the B.N. Gold Real Estate and Allied India Ltd. And B.N.G. Global Private Co. Ltd., are that they had collected Rs.55 Crore from the complainant and other investors assuring them to double their money within five years. However, they did not pay the money even after the maturity periods. On the other hand, they closed down the company office and fled away and thus cheated the innocent people. The specific allegations against the applicant is that he is the Senior Manager/Regional Manager of the company and involved in the crime with the other co-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is Signature Not Verified SAN innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The applicant was the Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.03.02 14:49:06 IST 2 MCRC-5974-2021 only an employee of said company and he has no role to play in the Policy making/decision making affairs of the company. The applicant is in custody since 04/07/2018 and the trial is still pending, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that

applicant and all the other co-accused persons played fraud upon innocent investors and embezzled the amount of Rs.55 Crore. It is alleged that applicant was the co-owner of that company and he held 20% shares of that company. So, he should not be released on bail.

The first and fourth bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 26/11/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.33796/2018 and second and third bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 01/03/2019 & 08/05/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.40/2019 & 12877/2019 and since then there is no change in the circumstances, except custody period.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its 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."

It is alleged that the applicant was the Senior Manager/Regional Manager and he took a share from the alleged amount and invested that money in immovable properties. Police also seized the documents of the

Signature Not Verified SAN properties from his possession. Similar offences are also registered against

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.03.02 14:49:06 IST 3 MCRC-5974-2021 the applicant in other Districts. So, looking to the enormity of the fraud and as to the fact that the applicant cheated many innocent people and embezzled their amount to the tune of Rs.55 Crore in connivance with other co accused, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Hence, the bail application is rejected.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

mn

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2021.03.02 14:49:06 IST