Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Dahariya vs The Madhya Pradesh State ... on 8 October, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-33415-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-33415-2021
(RAJKUMAR DAHARIYA Vs THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING
FEDERATION LIMITED)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-10-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.D. Mishra, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. Applicant Rajkumar Daheriya was arrested on 27/12/2020 in
connection with Crime No.574/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali,
District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 of
the IPC and Section 4, 6 of the Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan
Adhiniyam.
The earlier bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit by
this Court vide order dated 31/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3357/2021.
As per the prosecution case, Police registered Crime No.574/2017 at
Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. Balaghat (M.P.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 420/34, 120-B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Madhya
Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam 2000, against the
applicant, who was the District Coordinator of Abhinav Prayas Sanstha and
other officials of the Sanstha. The general allegations against applicant
Rajkumar Dehariya and co-accused persons of the case are that they had
collected money from innocent persons assuring them to make benefits
available on low premium as is provided by the Life Insurance Corporation to
its holders of insurance policies. However, they did not give any benefit to
them and did not return their money even after the maturity periods. On the
other hand, they closed down the Abhinav Prayas Sanstha'™s Office, thus
they cheated the innocent people.
Signature Not Verified
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.10.08 14:26:36 IST
2 MCRC-33415-2021
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. There is no evidence on
record to show that the applicant collected money from any person or any
amount was deposited in the account of applicant. In the FIR it is mentioned
that applicant took around 28,000/- from 16 people and he is ready to deposit
that amount under protest. Applicant has been in custody since 27/12/2020
and the trial is still pending, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed
the prayer and submitted that according to charge-sheet applicant took money
from 150-200 people and embezzled that amount and committed fraud with
them. The earlier bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit,
thereafter there is no change in circumstance. Even, applicant filed bail
application before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 25/05/2021 passed in SLP (Cri.) No.3767/2021.
So, the applicant should not be released on bail.
The earlier bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit by
this Court vide order dated 31/03/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.3357/2021,
thereafter there is no change in circumstance except custody period of the
applicant. Even, bail application filed by applicant before Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25/05/2021
passed in SLP (Cri.) No.3767/2021. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director,
(2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, cannot 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."
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.10.08 14:26:36 IST
3 MCRC-33415-2021
In the case diary statements of Deepak Singotiya and Brijlal Panche it is
mentioned that the applicant also induced the innocent persons to deposit the
money with Abhinav Prayas Sanstha. It is alleged that the applicant was the
Division In-charge of Abhinav Prayas Sanstha. So, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and enormity of fraud, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
However, it also appears from the record that the applicant is in
custody since 27/12/2020, while trial is still pending, so it is expected from
the trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously.
Office is directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned trial
Court for necessary compliance.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 2021.10.08 14:26:36 IST
