Raju @ Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9609 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                 ON THE 26 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25404 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAJU @ RAJESH S/O HIRALAL GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT
                          22 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: LABOURER
                          R/O: NAVLI, TEHSIL BHANPURA DISTRICT MANDSAUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI AVINASH KUMAR KHARE - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                          GANDHI SAGAR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....NON APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)

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

1. This is the 4th application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.42/22 registered at Police Station Gandhi Sagar, District Mandsaur for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, 3-4 years prior to the incident applicant was involved in gaming business. He obtained money from various complainants by promising that he will give them double amount. The applicant Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 27-Jun-23 10:15:50 AM

obtained about Rs.9.45 Lakhs from 10 victim persons but he did not return them any amount. Complainants lodged FIR at P.S. Gandhi Sagar, District Mandsaur. Accordingly offence has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is in custody since 31.5.2022. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. Out of 18 prosecution witnesses, 17 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Despite of the service, IO is not appearing before the trial Court. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Offence is triable by the JMFC and trial is not completed by the trial Court within 60 days, therefore, as

per the provision under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. the applicant is entitled for bail. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail.

4. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench in the case of Pramod Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. decided on 19.4.2018 in MCRC No.13444/2018 and the order dated 17.8.2022 passed in CRM-M-18492-2022 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab.

5. Per-contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that the applicant has cheated about 10 persons. As per the status report sent by the trial Court, 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined within 10 months and trial is going on speedily. In the near future final conclusion of the trial is possible. Hence he prays that the applicant does not deserve for bail.

6. Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below.

7. Considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 27-Jun-23 10:15:50 AM

advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and the fact that although applicant is suffering jail incarceration since 31.5.2022 and the offence is triable by the JMFC, but the trial is going on speedily and only one prosecution witness is remaining to be examined, therefore, it cannot be said that progress of the trial is not proper. Provision under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. is not a mandatory provision. It is only directive provision. In the instant case looking to the progress of the trial, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case in which the provision under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. will apply. Therefore, in view of the nature of offence and number of victim persons, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

8. Hence, 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: 27-Jun-23 10:15:50 AM