Ashok Kumar Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9451 MP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE

                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

                          ON THE 12th JULY, 2022

             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28262 of 2022

     Between:-

1.   ASHOK    KUMAR     BANSAL     S/O   LATE
     SHANKARLAL BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 51
     YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O OPPOSITE
     POWER HOUSE STATION TANSEN ROAD,
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.   PANKAJ KUMAR BANSAL S/O LATE SHRI
     SHANKARLAL BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 50
     YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O OPPOSITE
     POWER HOUSE STATION, TANSEN ROAD,
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....APPLICANTS
     (BY SHRI VINOD BHARDWAJ - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
     SHRI PADAM SINGH AND SHRI ANAND BHARDWAJ
     -ADVOCATE)

     AND

     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
     THROUGH POLICE STATION HAZIRA DISTRICT
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....RESPONDENT

     (BY   SHRI   ROHIT   MISHRA     -ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
     GENERAL AND SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA -ADVOCATE FOR
     THE COMPLAINANT)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                        ORDER

This is the first application preferred by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein they are apprehending their arrest in a case registered at Crime No.255/2022 at Police Station Hazira District Gwalior for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 193 of IPC.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that false case has been registered against the applicants and they are apprehending their arrest on the basis of above referred offence. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants that applicants are innocent and falsely implicated. Complainant is widow of applicants' brother namely Rajeev Bansal who was murdered in 2013 and thereafter she disposed of some property but in year 2021 they found a Will executed by late Rajeev Bansal in favour of one of the family members of the applicants and that is the bone of contention. A civil suit has been filed at the instance of Manoj Kumar Bansal -applicant No.2 in M.Cr.C.No.28258/2022 against the complainant and her children for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of alleged Will dated 13-03- 2013 executed by the deceased Rajeev Bansal in favour of his brother Manoj Kumar Bansal and when on an application preferred by the complainant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC she did not get any result, then this criminal case has been filed. Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience to them. In order to bolster his submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 and Ajay Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2007 Legal Eagle (MP) 1529. Under these grounds, they prayed for bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that husband of complainant passed away on 10-04-2013 and 28 days prior on 13-03-2013 Will was allegedly executed by the deceased Rajeev Bansal but surprisingly said Will came to the knowledge of present applicants in year 2021 and therefore, it creates suspicion and doubt. Handwriting of late Rajeev Bansal on the questioned document (Will dated 13-03-2013) was sent to handwriting expert but he gave opinion that questioned signatures (Q-1 to Q-6) and admitted signatures (A-1 to A-12) are having different penmanship and questioned signatures are fundamentally different from admitted signatures of Rajeev Bansal. After making complaint, CSP, Maharajpura has also conducted preliminary enquiry and found the case worth investigation and therefore, case has been taken under investigation and looking to the allegations custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out.

Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that after the death of her husband, family members of her in-laws are trying to get her out of family fold and properties belong to her husband and therefore, this Will has been forged after 8-9 years of death of her husband and in a very suspicious circumstance her husband was murdered and surprisingly Will was allegedly produced after 8 years of his death and it is further surprising that just one month prior to his death, he allegedly executed the Will. This is an attempt on part of applicants to throw her out of all her legitimate claims as wife of the deceased Rajeev Bansal. They are constantly pressurizing her for settlement. She also participated in mediation proceedings as per order of the Court but failed because they are not interested in settlement of the dispute.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and case diary perused. This is a case where family members of the deceased are trying to remove complainant to raise claim as wife of the deceased prima facie. Preliminary enquiry conducted by CSP, Maharajpura and report of handwriting expert indicate that matter requires in depth investigation. Handwriting expert has given opinion regarding different penmanship in respect of questioned documents and admitted documents. Husband of complainant died in mysterious circumstances 28-30 days after alleged Will was executed. All these factors raised suspicion, sufficient enough to carry out in depth investigation. Judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel move in different factual realm and are of no help to the applicants. Possibility of custodial interrogation is not ruled out. Therefore, in cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Interim protection (interim anticipatory bail) provided by this Court on 17-06-2022 stands recalled.

Application sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil* ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2022.07.13 22:37:38

-07'00'