Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alsiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-42959-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 42959 of 2021
(ALSIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
9
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-11-2021
Shri Raghvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Applicant Alsiya was arrested on 07.04.2021 in connection with Crime
No.1097/2020 registered at Police Station Multai, District Betul for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section
6 of the M.P. Nikshepkon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 2003.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant and co-accused persons,
who were the Director, Manager, Employees and Agents of AGM Company
Nagpur and Janseva mutual benefit Nidhi Limited had collected huge amounts
from innocent persons assuring them that they would get handsome returns
after the stipulated period. However, they did not pay the money even after
the maturity period. On the other hand, they closed down the company
office. Thus they cheated innocent people and embezzled the amount to the
tune of Rs.1,69,10,000/-. The specific allegation against the applicant is that
the applicant was the campaigner of the said company, he induced the
innocent investors to deposit the money with the company and he also
collected money from the investors.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The FIR was lodged by the
complainant Sapan Kumar Munger after three years of the incident. There is
no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging in the FIR. He further
submitted that it is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons
embezzled the amount of Rs.1,69,10,000/- while from the statement of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
prosecution witnesses filed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet it
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.11.09 14:53:48 IST
2 MCRC-42959-2021
appears that only Rs.30,00,000/- was embezzled by the co-accused persons.
From the case diary statement of prosecution witnesses, it appears that from
the alleged amount applicant took only Rs.7,00,000/-. The applicant is ready
to deposit that amount under protest. The applicant has been in custody
since 07.04.2021 and the conclusion of the trial will take time. Hence prayed
for the release of the applicant on bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance
on Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, the
order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Zarina
Begum v. State of M.P. through P.S. E.O.W. passed in
M.Cr.C.No.30933/2020 vide order dated 13.05.2021, Ravindra Lal
Arya v. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.9898/2021 vide order
dated 14.09.2021, and the order passed by this court in the case of Lalan
Prasad Kewat v. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.32252/2021 vide
order dated 28.07.2021, Durgesh Nanda v. State of M.P. passed in
M.Cr.C.No.848/2021 vide order dated 05.04.2021, Rajendra
Kartikeya v. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.38315/2020 vide
order dated 05.04.2021, Ramesh Yaduvanshi v. State of M.P. passed in
M.Cr.C.No.35491/2021 vide order dated 17.08.2021, Sonu Daheriya v.
State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.43645/2021 vide order dated
22.09.2021, Shatrughna Prasad Dwivedi v. State of M.P. passed in
M.Cr.C.No.33537/2021 vide order dated 04.10.2021, Pradeep Kumar
Pathak v. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.33541/2021 vide order
dated 04.10.2021, Shyam Sundar Singh v. State of M.P. passed in
M.Cr.C.No.16955/2021 vide order dated 09.07.2021, Jitendra Singh v.
State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C.No.41061/2021 vide order dated
28.09.2021.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that
the applicant and other accused person played fraud upon innocent investors
and deprived them of their hard-earned money. Sufficient evidence is
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.11.09 14:53:48 IST
3 MCRC-42959-2021
available on record to connect the applicant with the offence in question.
Applicant has criminal past. So, he should not be released on bail.
The facts of the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of
Maharashtra and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant do not match with the present case. In that case, the applicant had
filed a writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally arrested and
wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer at Alibaug Police in relation
to a First Information Report (registered on 5 May 2018 under Sections 306
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 despite an earlier closure report which
was accepted by the Magistrate and for quashing of the FIR. In the second
c as e, Zarina Begum v. State of M.P. through P.S. E.O.W. (supra)
Mohammed Sharif executed various sales leads of the land in favour of his
family members and friends, including Zarina Begum, on the basis of a
forged power of attorney and the police wanted to arrest Zarina Begum for
the offence which was allegedly committed 31 years ago. In those peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case learned co-ordinate bench granted bail to
Zarina Begum. So these judgements do not assist the applicant. In other
cases, as relied upon the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court, as well
as the coordinate Bench of this Court, do not lay down any principle
regarding the release of the accused on bail and granted bail to the accused
persons of the case on the facts and circumstances of these cases. So, the
applicant is not entitled to get bail in this case on the basis of parity.
In the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses, it is mentioned
that the applicant and other co-accused persons induced them to deposit
money with the company. It is also alleged that the applicant collected money
from innocent investors. He has criminal past, other offences are also
registered against the applicant. So looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the enormity of the fraud, this court is not inclined to grant bail
to the applicant at this stage.
Hence the application is rejected.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.11.09 14:53:48 IST
4 MCRC-42959-2021
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
(ra)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.11.09 14:53:48 IST
