Ajay Hardia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4365 MP

                                 1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT INDORE
                               BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                        ON THE 29th OF MARCH, 2022

                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49506 of 2021

        Between:-
        AJAY HARDIA S/O SHRI M L HARDIA , AGED
        ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR 1,
        ANAND NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI R.S. CHHABRA, ADVOCATE WITH SHIR AMAN ARORA,
        ADVOCATE )

        AND

        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
        HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. KSHIPRA
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI A. GARG, GA FOR STATE &
         SHRI ANIL OJHA ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR
        SHRI C.S. KARNIK, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)

      This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:
                                  ORDER

This is first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.363/2021, registered at Police Station Kshipra District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

As per prosecution story, the dispute in the present case is regarding land of two survey numbers i.e. Survey No.308/1 admeasuring 0.745 hectare and Survey No.305/3 admeasuring 0.531 hectare situated at village Arjun Baroda, Tehsil Sanwer, Indore. Earlier, Dhuldi Bhilal and Jagannath, members of Scheduled Tribes, with a permission of Collector dated 18.12.2006 has sold the land of Survey No.308/1 to Sharvan Verma and Mahendra Kumar Chaturvedi and further Sarvan Verma sold the land

of his part to one Jyoti Hardia. The land of Survey No.305/3 was sold by Jagannath to one Jagdish Mantri and thereaftr, this land was sold to Devi Ahilya Nursing College and Hospital through it President Dr. Ajay Hardia (i.e. present applicant) vide registered sale deed dated 11.06.2010 by

Jagdish Mantri. It is clearly mentioned in the permission granted by the Collector regarding the sale that these lands can be used only for the purpose of agriculture. Thereafter, Jyoti Hardia filed an application before Town and Country Planning Department for sanction of lay out on survey no.308/1 for construction. On the application filed before the T&CP Department, there are signatures of Ex-land owner Jagannath but Jagannath has refused to file or sign any application for permission before T&CP Department. Thereafter, during the enquiry conducted on the complaint made by the complainant to the Collector, the Tehsildar has directed the Revenue Inspector and on the basis of his report, the FIR was lodged against the applicant by alleging that the sanction of lay out was acquired by suppressing the facts about the land that the land belonged to Scheduled Tribes and as per the permission, these lands can be used only for agricultural purpose. In the application filed before the Gram Panchayat, it was mentioned that the area of Survey No.308/1 is 100000 sqft when the total area of the aforesaid survey is only 40000 sqft. It is also alleged that the application was preferred before the Gram Panchayat for taking permission of constructions by including the land of Survey No.305/3 for taking the permission of construction.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the land of Survey No.308/1 was owned by the wife of the applicant i.e. Jyoti Hardia and thus, the applicant is nowhere involved in the present case. The land of Survey no.305/3 is owned by Devi Ahilya college and Hospital through its Director Ajay Hardia and the same is still

used as an agricultural land and no construction activity is carried out on the said land and same fact is also evident from the Panchnama dated 02.04.2016 prepared by Tehsildar-Kshipra. The learned trial Court has grossly erred by observing that the institution/hospital is constructed over 100000sqft. of land and the same is in contravention of the Panchnama dated 02.04.2016 which categorically states that the institution/hospital is constructed over only 9500sqft of land of survey no.308/1. It is also

submitted that no construction activity has been done over the land of Survey No.305/3. The applicant has obtained necessary permissions from concerned departments and constructed and running the Institution/Hospital. It is also submitted that the present case is registered against the applicant solely on the complaint made by the complainant one Vaibhav Hardia made before the Collector without proper enquiry has been carried out prior to register the case against the applicant. It is also submitted that already number of complaints under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. have been filed by the complainant and his relatives and the present case is also arising out of the same cause of action and thus, registration of new case by the prosecution without appreciating the orders passed by the trial Court, is arbitrary. The application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent no.1/complainant is a counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant against the members of Hare Rama Hare Krishna Society who run Kewal Shree Institute of Paramedical Science and Kewal Shree Institute of Nursing that had obtained permission by forging documents and adopting fraudulent means. On these grounds, anticipatory bail has been sought.

Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance over the judgements passed in the case of Sushila Agarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC

273, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694.

Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others (2001) 6 SCC 181 whereby it has been held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same offence for same occurrence giving rise to one or more offence.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application by submitting that the applicant has committed serious offence and earlier, similar cases have already been registered against him. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.

Shri Ojha and Shri Karnik, counsel for the obejctor have vehemently objected by the bail application by submitting that the applicant is habitual offender and similar crime has already been registered against him. Earlier also the applicant has cheated 17 students for the course of DMLT who were studying in the college of the applicant and an FIR was also registered against the applicant in the year 2016 by Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore for not obtaining requisite permissions from the DAVV University. At present, the Investigation is going on and the applicant is having criminal records bearing Crime Nos.214/14 of P.S. Bhanwarkua, Indore, Crime No.605/2016 of Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore, Crime No.527/2018 at P.S. Bhanwarkua Indore and Crime No.323/2021 at P.S. Kshipra, Indore.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the objectors that earlier, this Court while granting bail to the applicant vide order dated 16.09.2021 passed in MCRC No.13909/2021, a strict condition was stipulated by this Court that if any fresh case is registered against the applicant then the bail granted to the applicant is liable to be canceled and even after such

condition enumerated by this Court, the present case has been registered against him. Hence, the applicant has violated the said condition himself. Hence, at this time, he is not entitled for bail.

Learned counsel for the objectors placed reliance over the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex court in the cases of Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 441 and Kari Choudhary vs. MST. Sita Devi and Others [(2002) 1 SCC 714 and also placed reliance over the order dated 08.06.2021 passed in MCRC No.24658/2021 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereby, it has been held that for the same offence, two or more FIR can be registered if the complainants are different.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary and material available on record.

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the applicant, there is no explanation by the applicant that why the application

filed before T&CP Department was signed and filed by Jagannath while there is no direct agreement between Jagannath and Jyoti Hardia (wife of the applicant). From the face of record itself, it is clear that there is no diversion order regarding the land of Survey No.305/3 and it is also crystal clear from the map filed before the Gram Panchayat that the area of Survey No.308/1 is mentioned as 100000sqft. while the total land of the said survey is only 40000sqft, therefore, it is clear that area of land of Survey No.305/3 has been included in the land of Survey No.308/1 by suppressing the facts. Hence, looking to the gravity of offence, earlier criminal record of the applicant and the fact that the applicant has breached the condition imposed earlier by this Court, no case for anticipatory bail is AMIT KUMAR made out. The application is rejected.

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=18db6b55824fa1834dc7e61d06ed3 c79a81bc156ec0309c5245d47a0a52604de, pseudonym=713D9BD68EDDADCD6B88DA2 B1BCDCFC0369478F5, serialNumber=62B9B1A094FCDF2F0107E91 326BC51DC9DCF83F25C9D67245FE3BCCFD 0F2DB67, cn=AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.31 16:44:43 +05'30'

AMIT (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya JUDGE KUM Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=18db6b55824fa1834dc7e61 d06ed3c79a81bc156ec0309c5245d4

amit 7a0a52604de, pseudonym=713D9BD68EDDADCD6 B88DA2B1BCDCFC0369478F5,

AR serialNumber=62B9B1A094FCDF2F0 107E91326BC51DC9DCF83F25C9D6 7245FE3BCCFD0F2DB67, cn=AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.03.31 16:44:23 +05'30'