Ateek Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5677 MP

                                  1                           MCRC-39879-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC-39879-2021
             (ATEEK KHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 20-09-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Sankalp Kochar with Shri Pramendra Singh, learned counsel
for the applicants.
      Ms. Seema Jaiswal, learned P.L. for the respondent/State.

This is first bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been

preferred by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.135/2021, registered at Police Station-Devnagar, District-Raisen, for the offences punishable under Sections 420/34 and 120-B of the IPC.

A s per prosecution case, on 04.07.2021, complainant-Jaysurya along with his friend, namely, Punit Jain went to Vidisha for checking the purity of gold bricks which is extracted from the property of one Ganesh Ahirwar i.e. main accused. After checking the said bricks, complainant found that the said bricks is to be pure and genuine. Thereafter, co-

accused Ganesh called the complainant with the offer of selling the gold bricks in the sum of Rs.6 lakhs and after that complainant accepted the same and reached the place where co-accused asked him to meet with the sum of Rs.3 lakh to buy half of the gold brick. When complainant reached there then 3-4 bikers came there and threatened the complainant and also slapped the friend of one Ganesh. Allegation against the present applicant is that present applicants along with other co-accused persons committed cheating with the complainant and grabbed Rs.3,00,000/- from him by showing half of pure gold bricks.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not involved in the alleged offences. Only on the basis of memorandum 2 MCRC-39879-2021 statement of co-accused, present applicants have been made as an accused in the case. Nothing incriminating articles have been seized from the possession of present applicants. Applicants have not received any money from the complainant and they have also not cheated the complainant. In the FIR, the name of the present applicants are not

mentioned. The applicants have not been previously convicted. Investigation is complete and during investigation the memorandum of present applicants have been recorded, some articles and amount have been seized from their possession. Present applicants were informed to appear before the trial Court due to this arresting is not necessary. Besides the above, applicants are ready to abide all the conditions as imposed by the Court. With the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants prays for allowing the bail application. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC, Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director in Criminal Appeal No.929/2021.

On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the said bail application submitting that complainant-Jaysurya and Punit stated in their statements that they can identified the accused persons but identification proceedings is not conducted. Identification of present applicants are required in this matter. Applicant No.1 has previous criminal antecedent of same nature. So, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Heard.

After considering the rival contention of both the parties, it appears that

it is true the investigation is completed but identification parade is not 3 MCRC-39879-2021 conducted yet. Complainant-Jaysurya and Punit stated in their statements that they can identified the accused persons. The applicant were also informed by investigating officer to appear before the trial Court at the time of filing of charge-sheet. Prima faice, there is sufficient ingredients to constitute the offence. So, it is not a fit case to allow the said bail application.

Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2021.09.27 18:11:07 +05'30'