Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priyen Khona vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 October, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
MCRC-50829-202 1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-50829-2021
(PRIYEN KHONA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 25-10-2021
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Avnees Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Jha, learned counsel for the complainant.
LA. No.30882/2021, an application under Section 301 (2) of CrPC
filed on behalf of the complainant, is taken up, considered and allowed.
Shri Vijay Jha, Advocate and his associates are permitted to appear
on behalf of the complainant to assist the State counsel in the
prosecution of this bail application.
This is second application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of
anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.118/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Ashoknagar, District
Ashoknagar (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of
the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Priyen
Khona that the applicant is innocent. He has not committed any offence.
Earlier application filed under Section 438 of CrP.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant was allowed by this Court considering
the fact that the applicant is a lady. Thereafter, the Court recalled the
order as it was brought into the knowledge of the Court that the applicant
- Priyen Khona is not a lady, rather a male. Whereas, earlier application
for grant of anticipatory bail was filed jointly by present applicant -
Priyen Khona and one Reena Khona and that application was considered
by this Court and applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is further
MCRC-50829-2021
submitted that present case is of civil liability and its remedy is also
available under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
complainant of this case and the applicant were having business
relations, therefore they had invested the money and thereafter dispute
arose and present FIR has been lodged. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed in
G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of UP & others [2000 (1) SCR 417],
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vitthalrao & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s). 8281-8282 of 2017], Lachha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
(2014 (3) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 1124], Smt. Prem Lata Vs. State of Haryana
[1997 (2) AICLR 603] and Rishi Mishra Vs. State of M.P. [2018 (2)
NIJ 739]. The applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to over-come the liability
imposed against him. Applicant is ready to abide by any condition which
may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory
bail to the applicant.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have vehemently opposed the application and has submitted
that earlier application for grant of anticipatory bail was allowed only
considering the fact that the applicants therein are ladies and no merits
were considered while considering the aforesaid anticipatory bail
application. It is further submitted that there is sufficient evidence
against the present applicant and huge amount is involved. Hence, prays
for rejection of this repeat second anticipatory bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary
and documents available on record.
It is apparent from the perusal of available record that the case 1s
registered against the applicant under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, wherein
MCRC-50829-2021
huge amount is involved. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity
of offence, this Court 1s not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
Accordingly, this second anticipatory bail application is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
Shubhankar
ws; _ Digitally signed
"y by SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Date: 2021.10.25
19:12:51 +05'30'
od
