Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashish Das on 21 April, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 21 st OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19203 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
( SHRI S.S. THAKUR - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
ASHISH DAS S/O SHRI GOPALDAS KHANDELWAL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 64,
DASSHARA MAIDAN, UJJAIN AND AT PRESENT - 1078,
ANURAG NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI VISHAL BAHETI - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. Heard on IA No.12206/2022, an application for recalling of the order dated
01.09.2022 and also heard on IA No.12207/2022, an application for stay.
2. By order dated 01.09.2022, the bail granted to the respondent/accused has
been canceled and the application filed by the State under section 439(2) of the
Cr.P.C has been allowed. The trial Court and the authorities have been directed
to take necessary steps for taking the respondent/accused in custody. The copy
of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance.
3. The respondent is an accused in crime no.128/2018 registered at police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 21/04/2023
6:25:44 PM
station Lasudiya, Indore for commission of offence under section 420 of the
IPC.
4. The facts of the case is that a complaint was filed against the
respondent/accused stating that the complainant had booked a flat in the project
"Pinnacle Dreams". However, even after allotment of the flat no sale deed has
been executed in favour of her and the said flat was allotted to some other
person by the Director of the company.
5. After hearing the accused and the State, the Sessions Court granted
conditional bail to the respondent/accused in BA No.1126/2019 on the
following conditions:-
vkosnd vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsxkA
vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dks foijhr :i ls izHkkfor ugha djsxkA
izR;sd lquokbZ fnukad dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr jgsxkA
6. The State filed an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the
respondent/accused has violated the terms and conditions of the bail order. He
is not attending the proceedings before the trial Court. On the said application,
notice was issued to the respondent/accused. The same was received back with
a note that the respondent has last three years is not residing on the said address
and is absconding. Thereafter, the Court heard the matter on merits and has
taken into consideration he was not attending the proceedings before the trial
Court regularly as per the direction of the Sessions Court which was causing
delay in process of delivering justice.
7. After the said consideration, the application under section 439(2) of the
Cr.P.C was allowed and the bail order was cancelled.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the aforesaid
order of cancellation of bail has been passed without giving opportunity of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 21/04/2023
6:25:44 PM
hearing to the respondent. It is further argued that the bail cannot be cancelled
without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused. In support of his
submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate
bench of this court in the case of Suryakant Vs. Chandanmal passed in
M.Cr.C No.6099/2016.
9. The bail was cancelled by order dated 01.09.2022 but till this date,
admittedly the respondent/accused has not surrendered before the trial Court.
Further, on going through the conditions of the bail order, it was made clear that
if the aforesaid conditions are not fulfilled by the accused then the complainant
shall be free to approach this Court for cancellation of bail order.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent could not produce any document to
show that he has been marking his presence before the trial Court. He submits
that due to Covid he did not mark his presence and made communication
through E-mail to the concerned police station. He he would have been given
opportunity, he would have justified the same.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
that the he did not appear before the trial Court. The Covid period was only for
a limited period and after the grant of bail, the whereabouts of the applicant was
not made known to either police station or the trial court. Further, despite of
cancellation of bail, the respondent/accused yet not surrendered before the trial
Court.
12. The judgment relied upon by the respondent/accused would not apply to
the facts and circumstances of the present case. The bail has been cancelled as
per the terms and conditions of the order itself for violating the conditions of
the bail.
13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case for recalling the order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 21/04/2023
6:25:44 PM
14. Accordingly, both the IAs stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 21/04/2023
6:25:44 PM
