Pappi Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2216 MP

                                      1


                     High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                               Bench Gwalior
                           *****************
            SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                              MCRC 5838 of 2022

                           Pappi Jain vs. State of MP
                                       &
                             MCRC 5832 of 2022

                             Manoj Jain vs. State of MP

                 ==================================
Shri Gaurav Mishra, counsel for the petitioners in both petitions.
Shri Nitin Goyal, Panel Lawyer for the State in both petitions.
Shri Pallav Tripathi, counsel for the complainant in both petitions.
                ==================================
Reserved on                                    16/02/2022
Whether approved for reporting               ........./..........
                 ==================================
                                         ORDER

(Passed on 17/02/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

This order shall govern disposal of MCRC 5832 of 2022 filled by

petitioner- Manoj Jain challenging the order dated 24/01/2022 passed by 8th

Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior dismissing his application for modification

of condition imposed in Bail Application No.208/2022 vide order dated

21/01/2022. MCRC 5838 of 2022 filed by petitioner- Pappi Jain challenging

the order dated 21/01/2022 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior

dismissing his application for modification of condition imposed in Bail

Application No.177/2022 vide order dated 19/01/2022. Since the facts of both

petitions are same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, I have heard both the

petitions simultaneously.

(2) IA Nos. 1984/2022 & 1968/2022 filed on behalf of complainant under

Section 301(2) of CrPC seeking permission to assist the prosecution in the

matter, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Shri Pallav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant is permitted

to assist the prosecution in the matter.

(3) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were

arrested in connection with Crime No.21/2022 registered at Police Station

Morar, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 406, 506 of IPC.

Thereafter, petitioners applied for grant of regular bail before the Court below.

Vide orders dated 19/01/2022 & 21/01/2022, petitioners were granted benefit of

bail respectively. While granting bail, the Court below has imposed a condition

that each of the petitioners shall deposit demand draft of Rs.10 lac. It is further

submitted that petitioners are poor persons and due to financial crisis, they are

unable to comply aforesaid condition imposed by the Court below for deposit of

demand draft of Rs.10 lac. Due to imposition of such type of condition by the

Court below petitioners are languishing in jail. Relying upon the judgments

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramathal & Ors vs. Inspector

of Police and Anr. reported in (2009) 12 SCC 721 and Mithun Chatterjee vs.

State of Odisha passed in SLP (Crl)No.4705 of 2021, it is contended that

aforesaid condition is inequitable, therefore, prayed for modification/deletion of

aforesaid condition.

(4) On the other hand, the learned State Counsel as well as counsel appearing

for the Complainant opposed the petitions and submitted that earlier petitioners

were granted bail by the Court below. Forgery as well as misappropriation of

huge amount has been committed by the petitioners by which, offence has been

registered against them under Sections 420, 406, 506 of IPC. Therefore, the

Court below has rightly imposed the aforesaid condition while granting bail to

them. No ground for interference is made out and thus, both the petitions

deserve dismissal.

(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as

well as documents available on record.

(6) From perusal of impugned orders as well as documents available on

record, it is apparent that in the matter there is misappropriation of huge amount

by which aforesaid Crime has been registered against petitioners. Petitioners

have defrauded more than thirty innocent persons and did not return their money

received from them. Therefore, the Court below has imposed the aforesaid

condition while granting bail to them. The condition imposed in the impugned

orders cannot be said to be improper. Hence, both the petitions are hereby

rejected, being devoid of merits.

A copy of this order be kept in the file of MCRC No.5832/2022.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge

MKB

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.02.18 19:14:49 +05'30'