Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mr. Sheel Panchal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 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 19th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14430 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MR. SHEEL PANCHAL S/O SHRI KISHORE PANCHAL OCCUPATION:
SELF EMPLOYED R/O 97 JAIN FARMS AB ROAD RAU INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(ARIHANT KUMAR NAHAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION PITHAMPUR DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL , GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDNET/STATE)
(BY SHRI PRATEEK MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR THE
COMPLAINANT/OBJECTOR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this present petition under Section 482 r/w
Section 439(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. seeking relaxation of condition No.1 in the
order dated 04.12.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.39589/2019. The petitioner
is also seeking refund of Rs.60,00,000/- deposited as a condition precedent
for grant of anticipatory bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 4/21/2023
11:12:51 AM
Shri Arihant Kumar Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submit that the petitioner is a businessman and he is required to travel to
abroad for business purpose. He is already facing the trial. He is not a
habitual criminal. Hence, he is not required to be confined by imposing
such a harsh condition. In support of his contention he has placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Jagdish Arora & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 2022(2) Cri.CC
Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent/State opposes the aforesaid prayer.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
complainant/objector has vehemently opposed the aforesaid relaxation of
condition by submitting that the petitioner as well as his father both were
employee of complainant and they have misappropriated more than
Rupees Five Crores and established the business. The Civil Suit has
already been filed against both of them for recovery of the amount. If he is
permitted to travel abroad, he will not return to India. Hence, even if this
Court grant him relief to travel then harsh condition be imposed. It is
further submitted that for a single prayer he earlier filed
M.Cr.C.No.35460/2022 which has been dismissed without changing the
condition except condition No. iv.
Shri Nahar submit that the aforesaid M.Cr.C. was withdrawn
because at that time prayer for relaxation of relief of condition Nos.1 and 2
has rendered infructuous.
So far the scope of section 482 read with Section (1)(b) is
concerned the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Arora
(supra) has held that the bail conditions can be relaxed by the High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 4/21/2023
11:12:51 AM
There is no allegations against the petitioner that he is misusing the liberty
of bail. He is not a habitual criminal. He has already deposited
Rs.60,00,000/- before the trial Court, therefore, in the interest of justice the
condition No.1 is hereby relaxed. The police Station Pithampur, District
Dhar is directed to return the passport to the petitioner. The condition No.1
is hereby replaced by following condition:
(i) that the petitioner shall file the written undertaking before the trial
Court by disclosing the date of departure and return of foreign trip and
shall inform the trial Court at the earliest after returning from UAE.
In view of the above, the M.Cr.C. is disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 4/21/2023
11:12:51 AM
