Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dasharth Signh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9125
1 MCRC-11064-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11064 of 2025
DASHARTH SIGNH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel with Ms. Nandini Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Shailendra Polekar, learned counsel for the Objector.
ORDER
This first bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed
by the applicant - Dashrath Singh S/o Banesingh @ Barisal Solanki for grant
of regular bail, who has been arrested on 01.02.2025 in connection with
Crime No.122/2024, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Indore
District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 420, 409
and 34 of IPC.
2. As per prosecution story, complainant Nehal Shah has submitted a
written complaint to Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 04.04.2024 against
Dhanpal Rajora, Chatraveer Singh Solanki, Dashrath Singh Solanki and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9125
2 MCRC-11064-2025
Sushila Devi Solanki wherein it has been alleged that applicant was having
business of generator in the name of Bharti Engineering, Indore. The
complainant came in contact with Dashrath Singh through her friend Mukesh
Gaur. The applicant and other co-accused persons told her that in Bundi,
district Rajashthan, marble mine in the name of Dhanpal Singh Rajora has
been allotted in 2006 at Khasra No.1570, 1571 which will continue upto
2056. They want some money and resources for operating the mine with the
aid and help of investors. They want to run the business in coordination with
the investors. It was assured that they have not entered into any partner ship
agreement or transferred license or sale agreement with any one with respect
to the mine. When the complainant consented for entering into business of
marble mine, the applicant along with other co-accused persons came there
and asked for Rs.2 Crores on the ground that she will be given share in the
mining. An agreement dated 23.10.2028 was entered into in this regard and
complainant has given Rs.25 lacs to Dhanpal Singh Rajora, Dashrath Singh
and Chatraveer Singh in the presence of his employee Vijay Sendre. Further,
money has been transferred to the accused persons. After that applicant and
co-accused persons told the complainant that Spash Mineral Private Limited
may also be taken in partnership therefore new Company Blue Saffire
Mineral Private Limited was incorporated and it was decided that mine will
be transferred to that Company and after incorporation of that Company, all
accused persons on 22.02.2019 again took Rs.15 lacs from the complainant
and after that they informed the complainant that mining lease may be
cancelled. Thus, time to time Rs.18 lacs in cash were given to Dashrath
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9125
3 MCRC-11064-2025
Singh, Rs. 8,60,000/- were transferred in the account, in the Axis Bank
account of Chatraveer Singh Rs.7,69,500/- were also transferred. Two
Hitachi machines of Rs.37,25,000 and Rs.45 lacs were also given to the
applicant and co-accused persons and again Rs.15 lacs were given for
purchasing some material. Thus, till January, 2020 Rs.91,60,000/- were
given to the applicant and co-accused persons and Rs.99,39,500/- for
machinery were also transferred. When complainant requested for
transferring the mining lease to Blue Saffire Mineral Private Limited, the
accused persons refused to do so. After that partnership deed was executed
and new Company Tapowan Marble at the behest of accused persons was
registered. It was assured that 50% share will be given to the complainant,
but after that Rs.50 lacs were also taken by the applicant for running day to
day affairs. Thus, the applicants and other co-accused persons on the false
assurances have taken money of Rs. 2,52,36,853/- from the complainant, but
did not fulfill their promises. Previously, they have committed the same
fraud with Mahavir Nagar. A written complaint was filed and after due
enquiry, crime was registered vide crime no.122/2024 against the applicant
and other co-accused persons for offence under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of
IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case of
purely civil nature. No offence has been committed by the applicant. One
civil suit has also been filed for taking account of the partnership firm.
Applicant is in jail since 01.02.2025. Sufficient evidence is not available on
record to establish the complicity of the accused with the alleged crime.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9125
4 MCRC-11064-2025
Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. There is no
likelihood of his absconsion leaving his family, home and profession and
also there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by applicant.
Conclusion of the trial will take considerable long time, therefore, learned
counsel prays for allowing the bail application and for grant of bail. To
bolster his submissions he has placed reliance on para 11 of the order dated
25.10.2024 of Bombay High Court in the case of Mukesh Ramesh Rathod
Vs. State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory bail application no.2892/2024 and
connected matters), para 7 of the order dated 11.03.2022 of High Court of
Gujarat in the case of Bharatbhai Jayantilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
R/Criminal Misc.Application No.4140/2020 and paras 43 and 44 of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 and submits that bail is rule and
cannot be refused for detaining the applicant as punishment.
4. Learned counsel for the Objector has opposed the prayer on the
ground that after expiry of power of attorney given by Dhanpal Singh in
favour of the applicant on 14.02.2014 for 36 months, the applicant and other
co-accused persons have taken in trap the complainant in mining business.
They have committed some fraud with Mahavir Nagar by entering into
agreement which was concealed by them from the complainant. Co-accused
Dhanpal Rajora and Chatraveer Singh Solanki are still on run and have not
been arrested so far and prays for dismissal of the application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has also
opposed the prayer on similar grounds as taken by the counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9125
5 MCRC-11064-2025
Objector and prays for dismissal of the application.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Mahavir
Nagar has not made any complaint against the applicant therefore agreement
with Mahavir Nagar cannot support the prosecution case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
8. As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant, they have been given in peculiar facts of those cases.
9. It is not in dispute that same facts can give rise to civil as well as
criminal liability. Hence, contention raised on behalf of the applicant that
civil case has been filed therefore criminal case is abuse of process of law
cannot sustain.
10. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, looking to the allegations and
evidence collected in support thereof against the applicant, this Court is not
inclined to grant benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the regular bail
application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 stands dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
