Raju Dashwant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1974 MP

1                                                    M.Cr.C. No.3960/2021

         The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
                          M.Cr.C. No.3960/2021
                          Raju Vs. State of M.P.

Indore, Dated:17.05.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri. Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for applicant.

      Shri.S.Karanjawala,         learned      Panel      Lawyer       for
respondent/State.

With the consent heard finally.

This is the VIII bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.172/2017 registered at Police Station, Raozi Bazar, Indore for the offences registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471/34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in custody since 26/11/2017. As many as 103 witnesses are to be examined out of which only one witness is partially examined by prosecution. Many co-accused and main accused are enlarged on bail by trial Court, this Court and the Supreme Court. The reliance is placed on the bail orders passed in favour of Ansh, Lavkush Pandey, Jitendra Shivram and Deepak Jaiswal. The Apex Court passed order in SLP(Cr.) No.8401/2018 in the case of Deepak Jaiswal that on furnishing property security of Rupees 1.25 crore Deepak Jaiswal be granted bail. Shri Pahadiya, learned counsel submits that applicant is also willing to deposit the property security of 50% of the amount for which allegations are made against him. Conclusion of trial will take time. The applicant may be enlarged on bail.

This Court in the connected M.Cr.C. No.23222/2021 (Abhishek Sharma Vs. State of MP) has held as under:-

"Heard through video conferencing.

Shri. D.Lahoti and Shri R.Maheshwari, learned counsel for applicant.

Shri.S.Karanjawala, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

With the consent heard finally.

This is the third bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.172/2017 registered at Police Station, Rauji Bazar, Indore for the offences registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 212/34, 406, 468, 471 & 467 of IPC.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 28th September, 2018. Thus, he remained in jail for more than two years eight months. The previous applications applications were dismissed solely on the ground that applicant could not deposit the amount relating to the alleged loss caused to the State exchequer. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the initial complaint lodged by the learned Collector on 8/8/2017 and consequential FIR dated 11/8/2017 the name of applicant does not find place. Subsequent thereto, two supplementary charge sheets were filed on 9/1/2018 and 9/12/2018 respectively. For the first time, in second supplementary charge sheet applicant's name was mentioned. By taking this Court to the said supplementary charge sheet, learned counsel for applicant submits that a plain reading of the relevant portion makes it clear that the main accused was Ansh and two other persons namely Lavkush Pandey and Jitendra Shivram. Applicant was merely an accountant/employee of ATM group owned by main accused Ansh. Interestingly Ansh, Lavkush Pandey and Jitendra Shivram are already enlarged on bail by this Court. Another co-accused Deepak Jaiswal could succeed from the Supreme Court in SLP(Cr.) No.8401/2018. The Apex Court granted him bail subject to depositing property security of Rupees 1.25 crore. The applicant is willing to deposit a security of adequate amount as deemed fit by this Court. The

applicant may be enlarged on bail considering the fact that conclusion of trial in this pandemic era in near future is a bleak possibility. As many as 103 witnesses are to be examined out of which only one witness has been partially examined till date. The incriminating material is already in possession of prosecution. The apex Court in its recent judgment reported in (2021) 2 SCC 779 Dilip Singh Vs. State of MP came to hold that in a bail proceeding the Court is not obliged to act as a recovery agent for a party. In this back drop and considering the order passed by Supreme Court in the case of co-accused Deepak Jaiswal (supra), the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Shri Karanjawala, learned PL for State has opposed the bail application. However, he did not dispute that applicant is the first offender and out of 103 witnesses only one could be partially examined. He further submits that since applicant is already succeeded in getting temporary bail, this application has lost its significance.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for parties.

The applicant was granted temporary bail for the reason that his one family member died because of Covid and many others were suffering from Covid. Resultantly, grant of temporary bail, by no stretch of imagination will frustrate his main application for grant of bail.

It is seen that his previous applications were rejected solely on the ground that he could not deposit the amount. Since learned counsel for applicant has shown willingness to furnish property security of an appropriate amount, I deem it proper to follow the course adopted by Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Jaiswal (supra).

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Abhishek Sharma be released on bail on his furnishing a property security of Rupees One Crore and a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said court regularly on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for

complying with the conditions enumerated in sub- section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

C.C. as per rules."

Shri S. Karanjawala, learned PL for State has opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submits that total scam is about 40 crore rupees, but no liability is computed in particular against the present applicant. Considering the fact that Supreme Court has granted bail to one of the main accused Deepak Jaiswal (supra) and this Court followed the procedure in the case of Abhishek Sharma (supra), I deem it proper to grant bail to the present applicant.

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Raju be released on bail on his furnishing a property security of Rupees One Crore Twenty Five lakhs and a personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said court regularly on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C.

C.C. as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL) Judge

vm

Digitally signed by SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Date: 2021.05.18 10:35:10 +05'30'