Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanchan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 MCRC-23154-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23154 of 2024
KANCHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Tarun Pagare, learned G.A. for the respondent / State.
ORDER
01. Heard on I.A. No.8750 of 2024, which is an application for
dispensing with from filing the certified copy.
02. In the interest of justice, I.A. No.8750/2024 is allowed and
applicant is dispensed with from filing the certified copy.
03. Also heard on I.A. No. 8749/2024, which is an application for
ignoring the defects.
04. No material defect has been pointed out by the Registry, therefore,
I.A. No.8749/2024 is allowed and defects are hereby ignored.
05. Also heard on I.A. No.11751/2024, which is an application for
taking documents on record.
06. Documents may be relevant for proper adjudication of this
application. Therefore, I.A. No.11751/2024 is allowed and documents are
taken on record.
2 MCRC-23154-2024
07. Status report has been received from the Court of Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain and as per the report, 3 prosecution
witnesses have been examined and case is fixed for examination of rest of
the prosecution witnesses on 31.07.2024.
08. This is the fourth (repeat) application filed by the applicant for
grant of regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 relating to FIR No.828/2022 registered at P.S- Chimanganj Mandi,
District-Ujjain (M.P.) for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of
IPC. The applicant is in custody since 24.12.2022.
09. As per prosecution story, complainant Sharad Kumar Tyagi
forwarded a complaint to Chimanganj Mandi police station, Ujjain stating
that on 13.11.2022, one unknown person came at his Branch for transferring
amount of Rs.3,10,000/- through cheque from one account to another
account and name of the account holder was Ramesh Singh Tomar. Office of
the Bank verified the cheque and transferred the said amount to bank account
of Reni Chako, but original account holder said that he never issued such
type of cheque. During investigation, it has been gathered that co-accused
Rahul Rathore received the entire money from cash counter of the bank
through the above disputed cheque and Rahul Rathore gave the amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- to present applicant Kanchan Singh. Present applicant
committed fraud with the complainant. Accordingly, the aforementioned
offence was registered against the accused persons.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. The applicant is in
3 MCRC-23154-2024
custody since 24.12.2022 and already suffered jail incarceration for more
than 1 year and 8 months. Sharad Kumar Tyagi (PW/1) has been examined
before the trial Court, who is the material witness, he admits in para 22 of his
cross-examination that bank returned Rs.3,10,000/- to the account holder
which means that there is some mistake or fraud Against the present
applicant charges have been framed under Section 420/109, 468, 471, 120-B
of IPC and dropping the charged under Section 467 of IPC. Applicant is a 60
years old person, FIR is belated, he has been made accused on the basis of
memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-
accused persons. Bank pass was recovered from the possession of main
accused Rahul Rathore and Rakesh Raikwar. No material evidence is
available against the present applicant in respect of the aforesaid offences.
PW/2 and PW/3 turned hostile, co-accused Rahul has been enlarged on bail
and applicant has been bailed out in the connected offence registered at P.S.
Madhav Nagar. This applicant is suffering from severe medical illness. The
applicant is a permanent resident of District Mathura (U.P.). Final conclusion
of trial shall 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.
11. Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State
opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that
earlier applications have been dismissed on merit by this Court and his SLP
for bail has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on merit vide
order dated 20.03.2024. Sharad supported the case of prosecution, 5 criminal
4 MCRC-23154-2024
antecedents of similar nature have been found against the present applicant
and out of the said 5 criminal cases, 3 cases are registered in Uttar Pradesh.
12. Both the parties heard at length and perused the impugned order of
the trial Court as well as the case dairy.
13. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments
advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the
fact that applicant's earlier applications have been dismissed on merit by a
detailed order and same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on
merit. Thereafter, Sharad Kumar Tyagi has been examined before the trial
Court, he has polluted the entire prosecution story and the written complaint
(Ex.P/1). Other witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage,
detailed marshalling of the prosecution witnesses is not permissible. As per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No.651/2007, decided on 30.7.2007) at the
stage of consideration of bail, marshalling of the prosecution witnesses is not
permissible and the Court cannot go into the question of credibility and
reliability of the witnesses put up by the prosecution. Hence, after rejecting
the earlier applications, there is no material change in circumstances in
which this applicant be enlarged on bail.
14. In view of the evidence available on record and after considering
the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to this applicant.
15. Accordingly, this fourth (repeat) bail application filed by applicant
under section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
5 MCRC-23154-2024
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
