Dinesh Agiwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9660 MP

1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT INDORE
                                 BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

                       ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2022

             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32178 of 2022

    Between:-
    DINESH AGIWAL S/O LATE SHRI GOVINDDAS AGIWAL , AGED
    ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGM SBI Y.N. ROAD, TEHSIL
    INDORE R/O 60, GUMASTA NAGAR NEAR SHIV MANDIR
    (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....PETITIONER
    (BY SHRI AJAY BAGADIA, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
    HEMENDRA JAIN, ADVOCATE)

    AND
    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
    THROUGH POLICE STATION M.I.G. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
    (BY SHRI SHASWAT SETH, PANEL LAWYER)
    (COMPLAINANT BY SHRI JITENDRA YADAV, ADVOCATE)
        This application coming on for order this day, the court passed
the following:

                                 ORDER

Applicant's first application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C.was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C.before the trial Court vide order dated 21.6.2022 by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.29191/2022.

This is second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he been arrested on 13.6.2022 in connection with Crime No.59/2020 registered at Police Station, MIG, Indore, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that applicant alongwith co-accused persons namely; Hansa Dubey, her husband Avinash Dubey, Sharda Shrivastava and Dharmendra Raghuvanshi have a conspiracy to commit cheating with the complainant Smt.Santosh. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy co-accused Sharda Shrivastava introduced complainant to the co-accused Hansa Dubey saying that she is a millionaire and having land worth crores of rupees at Khandwa. Both the above co-accused showed the complainant a notarized gift deed executed by co-accused Hansa Dubey in favour of co-accused Sharda Shrivastava, wherein it was mentioned that co-accused Hansa Dubey deposited an amount of Rs.5,37,000/- in co-accused Sharda Shrivastava's account in Narmada- Jhabua Gramin Bank through cheque No.00423 dated 1.6.6.2019 as gift. Both the above co-accused with the help of applicant and other co- accused persons compelled complainant to believe that co-accused Hansa Dubey and Sharda Shrivastava were having property worth crores of rupees and on the basis of aforesaid assurance complainant gave Rs.40,00,000/- to them. It has been specifically alleged against the applicant that he being Assistant General Manager (Branch Manager),

State Bank of India, Main Branch, Indore compelled complainant to believe that Hansa Dubey has about crores of rupees in her bank account and she can rely on her and thereby assisted co-accused Hansa Dubey in committing aforesaid crime.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that applicant being Manager of the said Branch of State Bank of India treated co- accused Hansa Dubey as other consumers. He never told the complainant that co-accused Hansa Dubey was having crores of rupees in her account. There is nothing on record in this regard except oral statement of the complainant. He further submits that he was not aware about the fact that co-accused executed any agreement or affidavit showing herself as wife of the applicant. Applicant did not sign on the aforesaid documents and signatures said to be put by him are apparently forged. Applicant is not liable for the act of the co-accused Hansa Dubey or other co-accused persons. He co-operated in the investigation as and when required. Matter relates to the year 2016-17 and FIR has been lodged in the year 2020, which is hopelessly delayed without any reason. Applicant's custodial interrogation is no more required in the matter. Trial will take time to conclude. Co-accused Avinash Dubey has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.3.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5279/2022. Applicant's case is similar to that of co-accused as allegations against both of them are same and they assisted co-accused Hansa Dubey and Sharda Shrivastava in committing crime. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 1 SCC 676.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as objector/complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer and submit that as the applicant was posted as Manager of a reputed bank that is State Bank of India and compelled complainant to believe that co- accused Hansa Dubey and Sharda Shrivastava were having crores of rupees in their accounts i.e. how he is trying to believe the complainant the fact that Hansa Dubey is wife of the applicant and compel the complainant to give huge amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to her. Allegations against the applicant are very serious, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly, offence relates to the year 2016-17 and co-accused Hansa Dubey was introduced by the complainant's known lady Sharda Shrivastava and on whose instance complainant started transactions with co-accused Hansa Dubey. Allegation against the applicant that he compelled complainant to believe that Hansa Dubey was having crores of rupees in her account and she was his wife. Agreement and affidavit executed in this regard were signed by the applicant or not, which has yet to be decided as handwriting expert's report has not been received, trial will take time, therefore, considering the nature of allegations alleged against the applicant and also overall material produced on record and observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P.& Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19), the concerned Jail Authority is directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.

This application is allowed and stands disposed of.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

  Patil                                            (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                                               JUDGE
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.07.15
16:43:05 +05'30'