Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharatsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15016 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BHARATSINGH S/O DEVISINGH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE RAJAKHEDI, TESHIL AND DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI POURUSH RANKA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER SPECIAL
POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKT KARYALAYA, DISTRICT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant
of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 18.07.2022 in
connection with Crime No.317/2015 registered at Police Station Special
Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Division Ujjain, District Ujjain (M.P.)
for commission of offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 12-04-2023
17:52:34
and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended 2018)
alongwith Section 420 and 120-B of IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief is that applicant being the Sarpanch of
Gram Panchayat, District Mandsaur, in connivance with other co-
accused persons executed lease deed of government land in favour of
ineligible candidate, who was resident of some other villages and not
entitled for getting lease. During investigation, it was found that
applicant alongwith other co-accused persons executed several other
lease deeds in favour of ineligible candidates.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant being
son of the then Sarpanch/Bhawarkunwar has falsely been implicated in
this case. Admittedly, matter relates to the year 2007 to 2009 and case
was registered on 21.07.2015. Applicant cooperated in the investigation
and was not arrested during investigation. After filing of charge-sheet,
his bail application was rejected by the Trial Court without going into
the merits of the case. Sarpanch/Bhawarkunwar was having the
authority to issue patta and present applicant being son nothing to do
with the same. The allegations alleged against the applicant are without
any basis. Applicant is in custody since 18.07.2022. Counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Aman
Preet Singh vs. CBI Through Director (Cri. A. No.929/2021 dated
02.09.2021), Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR Online 2021 SC
574, Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (Cri. A. No.2178/2011 dated 23.11.2011),
Premchand Dhannaji Birla vs. Special Police Establishment, AIR
Online 2021 MP 2379 and Parakaram Singh Chandrawat vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C. No.43817/2021 dated 15.09.2021) in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 12-04-2023
17:52:34
support of his submissions. Trial will take time to conclude and
therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant
of bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
application and submits that as the matter relates to Economic Offences
therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail only on the ground
that he was not arrested during investigation. Applicant being son of
Sarpanch alongwith other co-accused persons leased out huge part of
land to ineligible persons without any authority. Matter was investigated
on the instance of the High Court therefore, applicant is not entitled for
grant of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the case diary.
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out
by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that matter relates to the
year 2007 to 2009 and FIR was registered on 21.07.2015 since then
applicant was not arrested during the investigation and matter relates to
documentary evidence and certainly it will take time to conclude
therefore, looking to the overall material produced on record, this Court
is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail hence, the
application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail
upon his/her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his/her appearance before
the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 12-04-2023
17:52:34
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.
This application is allowed and stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 12-04-2023
17:52:34
