Hitesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1218 MP

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                              ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 33039 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          HITESH S/O SHRI BHARAT RAGHUWANSHI, AGED
                          ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 13,
                          GURUKUL COLONY, KADORIYA MHOW, DISTRICT
                          INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                          (SHRI VINAY SARAF - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI DEVDEEP SINGH -
                          ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MIG, INDORE
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

Applicant has filed this second repeat bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His earlier application has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06/04/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.13150/2021. Applicant is in custody since 18/02/2021 in connection with Crime No.507/2020 registered at Police Station MIG, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120- B of IPC.

As per prosecution story, present applicant is the Director of a technical Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:55:00 PM

private limited Company. Co-accused Nandkishore submitted tender in the complainant Company for supply of 50000 Set Top Boxes worth Rs.4 Crores and according to that Rs.97,74,300/- has been paid to the present applicant and the co-accused persons by the complainant Company. But despite getting the said amount, they did not supply the Set Top Boxes and committed fraud, forgery and criminal misappropriation with the complainant. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He was

arrested on 18/01/2021 but on 24/05/2021 he was released on interim bail and he did not misused the liberty given to him. Although his Company received Rs.97,69,300/- from the complainant Company but by e-mail dated 20/05/2017 it is informed that asset of M/s. Techguru has been acquired by the complainant Company. Signature of co-accused has been forged. He has been enlarged on bail by the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. His case is squarely covered by the guideline issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. The dispute involved in the instant case is of civil nature. Applicant is permanent resident of Indore district and final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:55:00 PM

Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that it is admitted by the applicant that he has received an amount of Rs.97,69,300/- from the complainant Company but as per the terms and conditions of the tender applicant and other co-accused persons have not supplied Set Top Boxes to the concerned Company. The allegation against the present applicant and other co-accused persons is that they have committed fraud of Rs.1,03,55,300/-. During the Corona period, applicant was enlarged on bail by the direction issued by the Hon'ble apex Court.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in AIR 2012 SC 830 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Another passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 on 11/07/2022, but the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on facts and are not applicant in the instant case.

In view of the prima facie evidence available on record, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Applicant remained on interim bail, therefore, he is

directed to surrender before the trial Court within seven days from today.

Accordingly, the second repeat bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:55:00 PM

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 1/20/2023 6:55:00 PM