Ajay Vikram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3047 MP

                                     1
            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     MCRC No. 9693 of 2022
                  (AJAY VIKRAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Jabalpur, Dated : 04-03-2022
      Mr. Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant.

      Mr. Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Mr. Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the objector.

Heard.

This first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.40/2022 registered at Police Station Amahiya, District Rewa, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the case of prosecution, a report has been made by the complainant namely Mrs. Seema Agrawal alleging therein that she has been asked by her husband namely Sanjay Agrawal who is a resident of Chhatisgarh and arrested on 02.09.2020 to make a contact with co-accused Fareed as he is a very influential person and in touch with the leaders of Congress Party. Thereafter, the complainant called her brother namely Dr. Ravi Agrawal, who subsequently called

Fareed and he, in turn, assured that he will help the complainant by providing political assistance so as to avoid registration of further criminal cases against her husband and also assured that with the help of advocates practicing in High Court and Supreme Court as also with other sources, he would find out the ways to release her husband from jail. According to the complainant, Fareed was in constant touch with her and also introduced her with some other persons having good relations with big political leaders and lawyers. Thereafter, a meeting was convened in Lucknow and finally, on an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, the deal was finalized. According to the complainant, after getting Rs.30,00,000/- from her father-in-law, she paid the same to Fareed. Thereafter, they met with Ajay Singh w h o got them introduced with Sandeep Tiwari @ Pintu. According to the complainant, after getting assurance from the applicant that no further cases would be registered against the complainant's husband, her brother Dr. Ravi Agrawal paid

Rs.60,00,000/- to him. As per the complainant, when the assurance as has been given by the accused persons is found false, then her brother shown anger to the accused persons and thereafter, Fareed further demanded Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the installments saying that the amount earlier paid was not enough. As per the

complainant, though further amount as demanded by the accused persons was paid to Fareed, but when nothing positive came out, then she found that she has been defrauded by the present applicant along with other co-accused persons.

Mr. Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.02.2022. He submits that if the allegations levelled in the complaint are considered to be true on their face value, even then offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not made out against the applicant. He submits that it is not the present applicant who had gone to the complainant and in lieu of any assurance, demanded money from her whereas it is the complainant who with the hope of help came to the accused persons for doing such thing which otherwise is not legally acceptable. Even otherwise, as per learned counsel for the applicant under such a circumstance and looking to the nature of transaction alleged to have been taken place between the parties, offence cannot be registered because the complainant was requesting and compelling the accused persons for committing illegal act.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court and High Court saying that the Courts under the similar circumstances has taken note of the fact when a deceived party alleged misappropriation against the accused persons for not doing the act which in fact was not in their domain despite that they accepted it and for carrying out such act, also received the amount and if they failed to do so, no offence of cheating is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if a person enters into a contract with improper object, he/she cannot enforce his/her right in relation to said contract.

O n the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate and submitted that in the complaint itself and in the material collected by the prosecution, the name of present applicant has been taken by the witnesses saying that the present applicant was also involved in the crime and directly connected with the accused persons and as such, he is

not entitled to be released on bail.

Mr. Datt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the objector by filing an objection has opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that from the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that the present applicant and other co- accused persons in a very planned manner cheated the complainant and grabbed a very huge amount from her. According to him, it is also clear from the material collected by the prosecution and from the statements of the witnesses that a meeting was organized wherein it was admitted by the accused persons that they

had already received Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the complainant and further demanded the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- so as to fulfill the assurance given by them. He submits that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the material collected by the prosecution, offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the applicant and co-accused persons and as such, they have rightly been made accused.

Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of case diary so also taken note of the judgments on which, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the complainant unnecessarily paid the amount to the accused persons who were neither related to the field nor capable to provide any type of help as assured by them. It is the complainant who approached the accused persons and requested them to do such thing, which in fact cannot be said to be acceptable legally. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance on the dates given by it.

It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish

DEVASHISH MISHRA 2022.03.10 10:28:38 +05'30'