Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sameer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11235 of 2022
Between:-
MOHAMMAD SABIR KHAN @ CHHABU S/O
SHRI NANNE KHAN , AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 111,
SHALIMAR COLONY, KHAJRANA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI V.K. JAIN -SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI M.A
MANSOORI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION KHAJRANA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16417 of 2022
Between:-
SAMEER S/O MOOSA , AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER NOORANI
NAGAR KHAJRANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MUKESH SINJONIA - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION KHAJRANA (MADHYA
2
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16423 of 2022
Between:-
SAMEER S/O MOOSA , AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER NOORANI
NAGAR, KHAJRANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MUKESH SINJONIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION KHAJRANA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These applications coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
These are repeat bail applications filed under section 439 of
the Cr.P.C in crime no.249/2021 under section 420, 467, 468, 471,
384, 120-B of the IPC registered at police station Khajrana, Indore.
Their earlier applications were dismissed on merits.
The relevant paras of the earlier order of rejection of
applicant Mohammad Sabir Khan are reproduced s under :-
5) As per prosecution story, the applicant is one
such person who indulged in threatening the real land
owners and deprived them from fruits of their plot. The
applicant's criminal record is as under:-
- Fkkuk vijk/k Øekad /kkjk
1 lnj cktkj [email protected] 341 323 34 Hkknfo
2 lnj cktkj [email protected] 324] 506] 34 Hkknfo
3 lnj cktkj [email protected] 302] 34 Hkknfo
4 lnj cktkj [email protected] 307] 147] 148]
182] 336] 323
Hkknfo
5 lnj cktkj [email protected] 307] 147] 148]
149] Hkknfo o 25
vkElZ ,DV
6 lnj cktkj [email protected] 435] 436]148]188
Hkknfo
7 lnj cktkj [email protected] 302] 120 ch 212]
34 Hkknfo
8 Fkkuk [email protected] 420] 467] 468]
[ktjkuk 471] 34 Hkknfo
9 Fkkuk [email protected] 420] 467] 468]
[ktjkuk 471] 120 ch Hkknfo
10 Fkkuk [email protected] 420] 467] 468]
[ktjkuk 471] 120 ch Hkknfo
6) Although applicant stood acquitted in certain
cases, yet a case under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC and
three more cases arising out of Section 420, 467, 468, 471,
34 of IPC r/w 120-B IPC are still pending. Thus, there is
every likelihood of applicant's threatening the witnesses or
tampering with the material. At this stage, it will not be
safe to grant bail to applicant. Resultantly, bail application
is rejected by reserving liberty to renew it after statement
of complainant Ajay Gupta is recorded by Court below."
The relevant paras of the earlier order of rejection of
applicant Sameer are reproduced s under :-
"8) During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that
against these applicants, there are multiple personal
complaints. In view of nature of accusation, magnitude of
illegality and bungling in the allotment of plots, illegal
division of colony, it will not be safe to grant bail to the
applicants at this stage. Thus, on the principles of parity, I
deem it proper to decline bail by reserving liberty to the
applicants to renew it after statement of complainants,
who have preferred complaint against them is recorded by
Court below."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
statement of the Ajay Gupta has been recorded in the court and
referring the para no.36 of his statement, it is submitted that he has
not recognized the present applicants. It is submitted that the case
of the applicants are on better footing then one co-accused Nitin
who has already been granted bail by this Court by order dated
23.02.2022 in M.Cr.C No.61560/2021 after considering the
statement of Ashok Gupta.
It is further submitted that there is no documentary evidence
against the applicants that they had executed either the sale deed or
is witness to any document and therefore, they are entitled for grant
of bail. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maulana
Mohammed Amir Rashadi Vs. State of UP and Anr reported in
(2012) 2 SCC 382.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the
prayer and submits that the earlier bail application of the applicants
was rejected taking into consideration the criminal record of the
applicant and the likelihood of the applicants threatening the
witnesses or tampering with the material. The supplementary
charge sheet has been filed in the present case and the witnesses are
yet to be examined in the Court and there is every likelihood of
threatening of the witnesses or tampering with the material. He
further placed copy of the orders passed by this Court on
23.02.2022 in M.Cr.C No.4034/2022 (Arvind Vs. State of MP) and
the order passed in M.Cr.C No.4988/2022 (Sameer Vs. State of
MP) to contend that this Court has not accepted the prayer for
grant of bail and has dismissed the applications with liberty to the
applicant to revive the prayer after recording of the statement of the
complainants namely Vivek, Ajay and Rudramani. It is submitted
that since the witnesses namely Ramesh Chandra, Ashutosh
Sharma, Anant, Vipin Kumar, Kalpesh, Kiran and Shakuntala are
yet to be examined in the court, therefore, the applicants are not
entitled for grant of bail.
Learned counsels for the applicants submits that the
statement of Ajay and Rudramani have already been recorded and
Vivek is not one of the witness in the present crime number.
Taking into consideration the criminal record of the
applicants as quoted hereinabove and there is every likelihood of
the applicants of threatening of the witnesses or tampering with the
material in case if the applicants are released on bail, I am not
inclined to grant bail at this stage.
Resultantly, the present bail applications are dismissed with
liberty to revive the same after statement of the remaining
complainant witnesses are recorded in the Court.
(Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Judge
sourabh
Digitally signed by
SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.03.31
18:43:16 +05'30'
