Vinayykant Agnihotir vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 802 MP

                                                 1
               IN         THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                        AT INDORE
                                             BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                    ON THE 13 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60210 of 2022

              BETWEEN:-
              VINAYYKANT AGNIHOTIR S/O SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD
              AGNOHOTIR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
              SERVICE
              R/O: SIKARI PALLHAR KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM
              ORIGINAL ADD. 128 MAHADEV TOTLA NAGAR, TEHSIL
              INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....APPLICANT
              (BY SHRI PALASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)

              AND
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
              THROUGH POLICE STATION - BHAWARKUA, INDORE
              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                         .....NON APPLICANT
              (BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)
              (SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI VINAY SARAF WITH SHRI

              YASHPAL AHLUWALIA - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)

                      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

             following:
                                                  ORDER

Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in jail since 28.11.2022 in connection with Crime No.289/2022 registered at P.S. - Bhanwarkua, Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 406, 408, 467, 468, 420 and Signature Not Verified 471 of IPC.

Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 13-Jan-23 7:13:26 PM Prosecution story, in brief is that applicant being a CEO in Mulchand

Bherulal Crushing Pvt. Ltd. and other companies owned by complainant- Rajesh Agrawal took 38 blank cheques of the complainant as well as his family member's saving accounts. Applicant on the false pretext of finance, get deposited an amount of Rs.5,62,500/- as processing fees in the account of one- Deshpal Singh. Applicant without informing the complainant get the mine allotted in his name as well as his other companions, thereafter took an amount of Rs.25 lakhs for transferring the same to the complainant's company.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. Initially case has been registered under Section 406, 408 and 420 of IPC, but later on offence has also

been registered under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. On 3.3.2020 complainant appointed the applicant as CEO of his group of companies Mulchand Bherulal Crushing Pvt. Ltd., Rajat Enterprises and Sapna Construction for remuneration of Rs.60 Lakh per annum and 7% annual profit. Despite providing services for 17 months, complainant has paid Rs.25 Lakhs towards the salary of 5 months and issued a Cheque of Rs.50 Lakhs, which was returned unpaid due to the "Payment stopped by the drawer", therefore, applicant has filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant. Applicant obtained financing for vehicles in the name of the complainant. Applicant is neither the sanctioning authority, nor the person with disbursement powers. The complainant has made false complaint to save his skin in the NI Act case. Applicant is supporting the investigating process. He is permanent resident of District Indore. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail. Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharth Vs. State of Signing time: 13-Jan-23 7:13:26 PM U.P. and another reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676.

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

Learned counsel for the objector also opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by submitting that in the year 2018-19 complainant applied for availing finance services at Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services, wherein the applicant was DSA. In March 2020 applicant approached to the objector and presented that he can arrange huge finances to the company. Thereafter, objector appointed him as a CEO of the company. Applicant malafidely initiated payment to the excess of Rs.3,90,117/- in favour of Maa Pitambara Enterprises, Ujjain. Objector has provided 38 signed, blank and undated cheques to the applicant and applicant misused the aforesaid cheques. Since 1.8.2020 to 19.6.2021 Rs.42,53,136/- has been paid to the applicant. Applicant has prepared a forged appointment letter and obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Court. Amount recoverable from the applicant is more than Rs.75 Lakhs. Hence the applicant does not deserve for bail.

Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that initially offence has been registered under Section 406, 408 and 420 of IPC, but later on offence under Section 467, 468 and 471

of IPC has been added, earlier applicant has filed application for anticipatory bail, although court had given finding that the Court is not inclined to allow this application but the applicant has been given benefit of the Arnesh Kumar's case

Signature Not[(2014) Verified 8 SCC 273] and the applicant misused the liberty given to him, as per Signed by: TRILOK SINGH the report of the State Examiner, M.P. Government regarding the questioned SAVNER Signing time: 13-Jan-23 7:13:26 PM

document, the appointment letter issued in favour of the applicant has been found forged, allegedly this is the case of cheating of Rs.75 Lakhs, therefore, in view of the evidence available on record, without commenting upon merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 13-Jan-23 7:13:26 PM