Suresh Jha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1447 MP

                                    1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 MCRC No. 3179 of 2022
                    (SURESH JHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Gwalior, Dated : 01-02-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri Pramod Pachouri, learned Public Prosecutor, for the complainant.
      Shri Rajiv Budholiya, learned counsel for the complainant.
      Heard on I.A.No.1768/22, an application filed under Section 301(2) of
Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant for assisting the prosecution.

      Considered and allowed.
      Shri Rajiv Budholiya, Advocate is permitted to assist the prosecution.
      Heard on the first application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the
applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
      T h e applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.628/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia (MP) for the
offence punishable under Sections 420,406,504 and 506 of IPC.
      As per prosecution story on 26.12.2021 complainant Rajendra Prasad
Tiwari has lodged a written complainant at Police Station Kotwali, District

Datia, against present applicant Suresh Jha alleging that he is retired from
Police department near Railway Station Datia and in Shardha Vihar locality,
there is a plot in the name of his wife Smt. Archna Tiwari bearing No.11, area
1.

858 hectare specifically 60 x30 feet, total area 1800 square feet. He contacted applicant/accused Suresh Jha, who is a civil contractor. He assured that he will construct his house on the aforesaid land. After due deliberation on 04.06.2019, an agreement was executed between the complainant and applicant/accused that he will construct two storied house for 3600/- square feet @ Rs.1200/- per square feet. Total cost will be 43,20,000/-. As per agreement, complainant and his wife paid 10 cheques on different date as enumerated in the complainant total Rs.15,05,000/-. But applicant/accused did not work as per agreement. Complainant in spite of

repeatedly approaching the applicant/accused for construction of the house, he always assured him that he will complete the construction work very soon but not done the work. Thereafter, he has stopped to meet the complainant.

On 26.12.2020, applicant/accused met him at Kuldeep Awasthi's house and told him that he is in trouble and demanded more money. On his assurance, he also paid one lac rupees by cheque. Later on, he also make

payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.07.2021 and on 01.07.2021 an amount of of Rs.1,40,000/- and also on 17.08.2021, an amount of Rs.50,000/- paid to him. He paid Rs.20,45,000/- in total but he has not done the construction work on the payment made by him. He told him that either he will complete the work or he will have to refund the money then he has started abusing him. On his complaint, offence under Sections 420,406,504 and 506 of IPC was registered.

From the side of the applicant/accused it is argued that in the light of the law laid down in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

From the side of complainant, it is argued that when applicant/accused did not execute the work as per contract and cheated him, therefore, he has lodged F.I.R. against him.

From the side of State counsel, it is argued that applicant is having criminal history, therefore, he may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

mani

SUBASRI MANI 2022.02.01 17:09:17 -08'00'