Ghanshyam Singh Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6731 MP

                                  1                              CRA-6041-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   CRA-6041-2021
        (GHANSHYAM SINGH GAUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 23-10-2021
      Shri R.S. Sikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri Nitin Goyal, learned Panel Laywer for the respondent/State.

Present first criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 23/09/2021 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act),

Gwalior (M.P.), whereby application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.

Appellant has been arrested on 24/08/2021 in connection with Crime No.66/2021 registered at Police Station Padav, Distt. Gwalior, punishable under Sections 420, 406, 294, 506 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant - Ghanshyam Singh Gour that the appellant has not committed any offence. He has falsely

been implicated in this case. Appellant is innocent and he is in custody since 24/08/2021. The overall act of the appellant is bona fide as there is one contract between the appellant and complainant on record which reflects that they were consented to start a business wherein the amount of complainant was also invested and business has already been started. Thereafter, the complainant of this case has requested to return back the amount invested in the business. It is further submitted that the contract between the parties reflects that the present case is of civil in nature and such liability cannot be converted into criminal liability. In support of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others [(2006) 6 SCC 736], Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat & o the rs [AIR 2011 SC 2258], Rajib Ranjan and others Vs. R.

2 CRA-6041-2021 Vijaykumar [(2015) 1 SCC 513], International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited and Another [(2016) 1 SCC 348]. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant is not involved in the present case directly or indirectly as there is no

role of the appellant, rather some cheques of the appellant were kept with the co-accused Deepak Bansal and Deepak Bansal has misused the cheques so kept with him. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that now investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. Trial will take its own time. Appellant is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays for grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that offence is registered against the appellant under Sections 420, 406, 294, 506 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein huge amount is involved. It is further submitted by learned State counsel that there is history of 10 criminal cases against the present appellant. Therefore, as huge amount is involved and considering the gravity of offence, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of this criminal appeal filed for grant of bail to the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and documents available on record.

It is apparent from the perusal of record that the offence is registered against the appellant under Sections 420, 406, 294, 506 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein huge amount is involved and initially amount was taken for starting business of Tours & Travels, thereafter, the amount was used for liquor business. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as looking to the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

3 CRA-6041-2021 Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

Shubhankar

Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2021.10.23 16:17:19 +05'30'