Prafulla Gadge vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3475 MP

                                                                         1
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                                                                     BEFORE
                                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                               ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2022

                                                    MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 62892 of 2021

                                            Between:-
                                    1.      PRAFULLA GADGE S/O SHRI PURUSHOTTAMRAO
                                            GADGE , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                            BUSINESS/SELF EMPLOYED BANSIWALA TOWER,
                                            SAPNA SANGITA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
                                            PRADESH)

                                    2.      AFSAR NAWAB BAIG S/O IFTEKHAR BEG , AGED
                                            ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED
                                            MR-5, SILVER SPRINGS TOWNSHIP, PHASE-1
                                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                            (By Shri Dhananjay V. Dhandarkar)

                                            AND

                                            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                            HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. TEJAJI NAGAR,
                                            INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                            (By Ms. Mamta Sandilya, Govt. Advocate )
                                            (By Shri Ajay Bagadiya, Shri Vinay Puranik, Shri AMit Rawal, Ms. PRanjali
                                            Panya, Shri Abhishek Jain and Shri Neelesh Agrawal, counsels for the
                                            objectors)

                                          This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                                    Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
                                                                         ORDER

With the consent, heard finally.

Perused the case diary.

This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are apprehending theior arrest in connection with Crime No.391/2019 registered at Police Station-Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC.

Prosecution story, in brief is that applicant no.1 is one of the Director of the company namely; M/s Vatsalya Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and applicant Signature Not Verified SAN

No.2 is an employee of the aforesaid company. It is alleged against the applicants Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI Date: 2022.03.11 16:52:10 IST

that they started real estate project in the name of Shiva Residence - II at Indore

and without any statutory permission and developing the colony, executed agreements to sale the plots in favour of the complainant Vaibhav Neema and others and took huge amount from them. They after execution of the agreement to sale with the complainants and others, neither complied with the agreement nor

returned back money to them as per agreement. The post dated cheque given by them were also dishonored, when presented in the bank.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that M/s Vatsalya Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. purchased the land situated at Village Umarikheda, Patwari Halkh No.12, Tehsil & District - Indore. The earlier owner of the above land took the responsibility to obtain permission for diversion and development etc., but did not perform the same. Therefore, applicants could not execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant and others as per agreement. Applicants have returned the money to all the complainant and others persons named in the FIR. Applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and his custodial interrogation is not required in the matter. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant - State as well as Shri Bagadiya, counsel for the complainant and counsel for other complainants have opposed the application and submitted that since applicants are absconding and proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against them, therefore, their application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Shri Bagadiya, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI), (2012) 8 SCC 730 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 to bolster his submissions. Therefore, applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the objector submits that complainant has no objection, if applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is apparent from the record of the prosecution that proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been Signature Not Verified SAN issued against the applicants, in the light of the observations made by Apex Court Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI Date: 2022.03.11 16:52:10 IST in the cases of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) and State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (supra). Therefore, considering the over all facts and totality of the circumstances of the case, a t this stage, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

C.c. as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE V

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI Date: 2022.03.11 16:52:10 IST