Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alok Sarda vs The State Of M.P. Through P.S. E.O.W. ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 MCRC-27528-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27528 of 2024
ALOK SARDA
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. E.O.W. UNIT
Appearance:
Shri S. K. Vyas - Senior Advocate with Shri Nilesh Agrawal -
Advocate for applicant.
Shri Amit Raval - G.A. for respondent/State.
Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for objector (Farmers).
Shri Hemendra Jain - Advocate for objector (Kissandhan).
Shri Ashish Sharma - Advocate for objector (LTC Commercial
Company).
Shri Kratik Mandloi - Advocate for objector (IDBI Bank).
ORDER
1] They are heard and perused the case diary.
2] This is the applicant's fourth bail application filed under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.43/2020
registered at Police Station EOW, Bhopal Unit, District- Indore (MP) for
offence punishable under Sections 420, 408, 409, 201 & 120-B of IPC. The
applicant is in custody since 28.05.2021.
3] Applicant's earlier application M.Cr.C. No.21292 of 2022 has
2 MCRC-27528-2024
already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2022 on merits,
which was also challenged by the applicant before the Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).44789 of 2023, which was
also disposed of by the Supreme Court on 06.11.2023 in the following
manner:-
"There is a delay of 288 days in filing the present special leave
petition. Even otherwise, we are not inclined to issue notice in the
special leave petition.
We are informed that the trial is proceeding expeditiously. We hope
and trust that the trial will be concluded within a period of six to eight
months from today.
Recording the aforesaid, the application for condonation of delay and
the special leave petition are dismissed.
We clarify that the impugned judgment and the dismissal of the
present special leave petition will not come in the way of the petitioner
- Alok Sarda filing a fresh application for grant of bail in case of
change in circumstances or if the trial gets prolonged for reasons not
attributable to the petitioner/co-accused, which application if filed, will
be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall. stand. disposed of."
4] Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that subsequent
to the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, only 18
witnesses have been examined out of 27 witnesses and 8 witnesses still
remain to be examined. Senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this
Court to the order passed by this Court in favour of the present applicant in
another crime No.44 of 2020 of identical nature in M.Cr.C. No.13571 of
2024 dated 24.07.2024, wherein applicant has already been granted bail and,
although in the aforesaid order it is mentioned that the applicant has suffered
more than 4 years of incarceration, however, senior counsel has submitted
that as of now the applicant has suffered three years and two months of
incarceration. Attention of this Court was also drawn to the fact that in the
earlier order of the present applicant in M.Cr.C. No.13571 of 2024, the date
of arrest is also mentioned as 28.05.2021, which is the correct date of his
3 MCRC-27528-2024
arrest.
5] Senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a
synopsis in which the applicant has tried to project the dates on which the
case was fixed before the trial Court and the proceedings of the trial Court to
submit that only on two occasions adjournments were sought i.e., on one
occasion for one day only and on the other occasion, the cross-examination
could not be completed on the same day, hence, it was listed after ten days.
Thus, it is submitted that since the conclusion of trial is likely to take
sufficient long time and as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court,
the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
6] Counsels appearing for opposite parties i.e., Shri Amit Raval -
G.A. for respondent/State; Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for objector
(Farmers); Shri Hemendra Jain - Advocate for objector (Kissandhan); Shri
Ashish Sharma - Advocate for objector (LTC Commercial Company); and
Shri Kratik Mandloi - Advocate for objector (IDBI Bank) have vehemently
opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made
out, looking to the scale of embezzlement against the applicant. However, it
is not denied that 8 witnesses are still to be examined and on two occasions
the applicant had sought adjournments as aforesaid out of the 25 dates fixed
before the trial Court.
7] Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record and taking note of the order passed by this Court
in the identical case in M.Cr.C. No.13571 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024, this
Court is inclined to allow the present application as well. However, it is
4 MCRC-27528-2024
directed that the applicant shall also submit an affidavit of his entire assets
movable and immovable as on 01.08.2024 and shall also submit an
undertaking that he shall not part with the aforesaid properties without the
permission of the trial Court.
8] Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the
application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. The applicant is directed
to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance
before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain
present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the
conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.
C.c. as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
