Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahlad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 1279 of 2022
(PRAHLAD SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the objector.
T h is is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C.,1973 has been filed by the applicant- Prahlad Sharma s/o Shri
Durgaprasad Sharma, in connection with Crime No.1335/2021 registered at
Police Station-Nishatpura, District- Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable
under Sections 409, 420/34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent, he
has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has nothing to do with the said
company, namely Fish Fortune Product Company. He has only rented out his
shop to the Fish Fortune Product Company for managing their office. He has
executed a rent agreement in the name of his son Shubham Sharma and the
company. Since office of the company is situated in his property, he has been
falsely implicated.
It is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances Indore Bench
of this High Court in M.Cr.C. No.41385/2021 has given benefit of
anticipatory bail to the applicant Prahlad.
It is submitted that under similar facts and circumstances in M.Cr.C.
No.48663/2021 vide order dated 30.11.2021, a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court at Jabalpur has extended the benefit of the law laid down in case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and has directed that
applicant shall furnish a written undertaking before the SHO concerned that
they will abide by the terms and conditions of various circulars as well as
orders issued by the Central Government, State Government and Local
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Administration from time to time, such as maintaining of social distancing,
Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI
Date: 2022.01.21 18:33:27 IST
physical distancing, hygiene etc to avoid proliferation of corona virus and
taking the ratio of law laid down in Arnesh Kumar that if the applicant when
summoned, co-operate in the investigation, then the occasion of arrest should
not arise as disposed of the anticipatory bail application.
Reading these judgments, it is submitted that applicant is innocent, he
has been falsely implicated. He has no role in the present crime and, therefore,
he be given benefit of anticipatory bail.
Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State in
his turn submits that firstly ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in case
of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra) will not be applicable to the
present applicant in-as-much as that judgment holds field in relation to
offences involving punishment up to seven years of imprisonment.
It is submitted that applicant has been charged under Section 409 of
IPC for which punishment is life imprisonment or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable
to fine.
It is submitted that this aspect has been glossed over by a Co-ordinate
Bench while deciding M.Cr.C. No.48663/2021 that in a case where offence
under Section 409 is also charged with then ratio in case of Arnesh Kumar
will not be applicable.
It is also submitted that there are more than 10 cases registered against
the applicant, benefit of provisions contained in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
meant for bonafide persons and not for habitual offenders, who have duped
huge amount of money from the complainants.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
decisions passed by Co-ordinate Benches, as has been suggested by Shri
Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer, decision of a Co-ordinate Bench at Jabalpur in
M.Cr.C. No.48663/2021 will not be applicable in-as-much as ratio of Arnesh
Kumar in the light of which anticipatory bail application has been disposed of,
has no application to the facts of the case.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI
Date: 2022.01.21 18:33:27 IST
As far as ratio of decision rendered by Indore Bench in M.Cr.C.
No.41385/2021 is concerned in that case Court had specifically noted that
complainant had not produced any MOU and, therefore, allegation of
payment of Rs.5,00,000/- for construction of the pond for Fish Farming was
declared to be unfounded. Besides this, it took note of certain other facts
regarding currency of the agreement etc, but in the present case, admittedly
MOU has not been executed with the applicant, MOU has been executed with
the company. Applicant has been a mediator in pursuing the complainant to
invest in the company.
He has admitted that he received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the
company though raised a plea that amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was sent in his
account as he was known to the Officers of the company but taking into
consideration a fact that applicant Prahlad has received incentive/commission
in his account, it cannot be said that he has no role in the dealing and he has
been falsely implicated, merely because company happens to be tenant in his
self earned property.
In view of such facts that admittedly there is a memorandum of
understanding in favour of the complainant, there is an admission that
company had paid two installments at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per month and
also an admission that present applicant had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
from the said company, his complicity and involvement cannot be ruled out
and taking into consideration that he has helped the company in duping
several investors, this case being on a different footing application for grant
of anticipatory bail fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
AT
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI
Date: 2022.01.21 18:33:27 IST
