Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jyoti Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 51163 of 2021
(Jyoti Goyal Vs. State of M.P. )
Jabalpur, Dated : 18 .11.2021
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Priyank Agrawal,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bhurrak, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard on IA No. 19829/21, an application under Section 302 of
Cr.P.C. raising supplementary objections over grant of anticipatory bail.
For the reasons stated in the IA, it is allowed. The complainant is
permitted to assist the learned Govt. Adv.
Heard on IA No. 20547/21, an application for amendment in the
cause title owning to subsequent development.
For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed. The necessary
correction be carried in the cause title during the course of the case.
The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as she has apprehension of her arrest
in connection with Crime No. 1185/2021, registered at Police Station Kolar
Road, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 420/34, 467, 468
of IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is stated that the applicant has been is a lady aged about 56
years, she has been falsely implicated in the case. She has not committed
any offence in any manner.
Attention is drawn to the documents filed alongwith the application
that a partnership deed was entered into on 2nd of July 2013 with one
Sunil Tibrewal. The amount of transaction, which has been pointed out for
which allegation has been levelled against the applicant and other, i.e
Sunil Tibrewal is to the tune of Rs.14 lacs. Document A -5 has been filed to
demonstrate that the substantial amount has been transferred prior to
entering into agreement by the present applicant with Sunil Tibrewal.
It is submitted that she herself has filed an application under the
Commercial Act before the Commercial Courts alongwith an application for
grant of interim relief, wherein vide order dated 11.3.2017, interim relief
was granted in her favour and direction was issued not to create any third
party interest. That order is still in operation. It is argued that the entire
transaction was done by Sunil Tibrewal. There is nothing on record to show
that she has ever been involved in commission of any offence. No
conspiracy has been done by her. The offence under Section 467, 468 of
IPC are not made out looking to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC 427, Sheila Sebastian Vs.
Jawaharaj and another (2018) 7 SCC, 581, Mohammed Ibrahim
and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC, 751, and
Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Chongtham Manihar Singh and another
reported in (1996) 11 SCC 622.
It is argued that the civil dispute is being given the colour of criminal
case and offence has been registered against the present applicant. She
is ready to abide all the terms and conditions, that may be imposed
while considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, Council appearing for the State as well as counsel
appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that it is not only a single case
registered against the present applicant. The applicant and her son are
involved in these activities and they are regularly cheating people by
creating forged documents and trying to sell out the properties and
graving the money by them.
It is submitted that the other co- accused Sunil Tibrewal is still
absconding in the matter and is not cooperating in the investigation. No
bank account has been opened by the firm in pursuance to Clause 11 of
the deed of partnership. She herself has given the permission to Sunil
Tibrewal to carry out the monetary transaction. She being the signatory
authority in all the documents and she has not cooperated in the
investigation, she is still absconding despite of the fact that the FIR
was registered on 3.9.2021. In such such circumstances, they have prayed
for dismissal of the application.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the fact that during investigation offence under Section 467 and 468
and 471 of IPC have been registered against the present applicant coupled
with the fact that the principle accused is still absconding and is not
cooperating in the investigation, this court does not deem it appropriate to
allow this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Counsel appearing for the complainant has drawn attention of this
court to the order passed by this coordinate bench of this court in a bunch
of Miscellaneous Applications, one of them, being M.Cr.C. 47156/2021,
(Dilip Sisodiya Vs. State of M.P.), wherein on the similar
circumstances, the court has denied to grant the anticipatory bail. A
detailed order has been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court.
In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to allow the
application.
It is hereby rejected.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
bks
BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS
2021.11.22 18:57:20
+05'30'
