Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mr. Diven Dembla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16075
1 MCRC-25589-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25589 of 2025
MR. DIVEN DEMBLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Varun Rawal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Virendra Khadav - G.A. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
Shri Ajay Bagadia, senior advocate with Shri Rahul Maheshwari,
learned counsel for the respondent/objector.
ORDER
1. They are heard. Perused the documents / challan papers.
2. This is applicant's second application under Section 482 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for
grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Crime No.1197/2023 registered at Police Station Banganga, District Indore
(MP) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 408 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
3. The allegation against the applicant is of criminal breach of trust and
cheating as it is alleged that the applicant entered into an agreement to sale
his land through his company M/s Precision Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. For a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16075
2 MCRC-25589-2025
consideration of Rs.20,02,00,000/- (Twenty Crore Two Lakhs Rupees). It is
also alleged that the land situated at Village Jakhya, Tehsil Sanver, District
Indore and the aforesaid land was already mortgaged with HDFC Bank,
Mumbai, and this fact was not disclosed by the applicant to the complainant
and the money was obtained.
His first application, M.Cr.C. No.51194/2023, has already been dismissed
by this Court on 08/02/2024 on merits, holding that the custodial
interrogation of the applicant appears necessary. The relevant para No.11 of
the same reads as under:-
"11] From the record, it is apparent that the FIR in the present case has been
lodged on 24/07/2023 against (1) Ghanshyam Dembla, (2) Deven Dembla and (3)
Neeraj Thakkar initially under Section 420 and 406 of IPC, however, subsequently
Section 409 of IPC has also been added. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the
complainant has purchased the property for a sum of Rs.2 Crores 2 Lakhs and it is
alleged in the FIR that the Directors of the company, M/s Precision Industries Pvt.
Ltd. had assured that there are no dues against the said property despite the fact that
the property itself was mortgaged with HDFC bank, Mumbai and its original
documents were also kept with the HDFC bank only. It is found that in the objection
which was published in the news paper at the instance of the present applicant on
21/03/2022, the applicant has nowhere mentioned that the said property is a
mortgaged property nor there is any document to demonstrate that the applicant had
raised the aforesaid objection before any forum or even with the co-accused persons
that the property cannot be sold because it is already mortgaged with the bank. In
such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the custodial interrogation of the applicant appears necessary."
4. The aforesaid order passed by this Court was also challenged by the
applicant before the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No.4698/2024, which was
also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 08/07/2024,
however, with the following observations:-
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special
leave petition is dismissed.
However, in case the petitioner - Diven settles the matter with the HDFC Bank and
procures the original sale deed, it will be open to the petitioner - Diven to file a
fresh application for grant of anticipatory bail. If any such application is filed, the
same will e considered and decided in accordance with law. Pending application(s),
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16075
3 MCRC-25589-2025
if any, shall stand disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
5. The contention of the applicant is that pursuant to the aforesaid
order, the applicant has already settled the account with the HDFC Bank, and
a No Objection Certificate dated 22/11/2024 has also been issued by the
Bank to the applicant, certifying that the loan has been fully repaid in their
books, and regarding the security documents submitted with the Bank, and it
was also informed to the applicant to visit their branch at Bhopal. However,
according to the applicant, the documents were not returned to it, hence a
complaint in this regard has also been filed by the applicant to the Reserve
Bank of India on 03/03/2025, but till date no action has been taken on it by
the RBI.
6. However, pursuant to the observations made by the Supreme Court
in its order darted 08/07/2024 in SLP No.4698/2024, the third application for
anticipatory bail was filed by the applicant before the Sessions Court, Indore
on 18/11/2024 which has also been rejected by the said Court, holding that
the criminal Court has no powers to review its own order and in the earlier
order passed by the said Court on 03/12/2024, the application for anticipatory
has already been rejected on merits, hence, no interference is made out.
Although, the trial Court has also reflected upon the merits of the matter
observing that at the time of entering into the agreement, the complainant
had the knowledge that the disputed property has already been mortgaged
with the HDFC Bank. Thus, in this backdrop the present application has been
filed before this court.
7. Shri Varun Rawal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16075
4 MCRC-25589-2025
that the company of which the applicant was the director, viz., M/s Precision
Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. has paid a sum of Rs.11 Crore to the HDFC Bank
and has settled its loan account, the NOC regarding which has also been
given by the HDFC Bank on 22/11/2024. It is submitted that the aforesaid
payment of the amount to the HDFC Bank only shows the applicant's bona
fide intentions. It is also submitted that a Civil Suit has also been filed by the
applicant and his Company against the complaint for the cancellation of the
sale deed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / State as also,
the objector, have opposed the prayer. It is submitted by Shri Ajay
Bagadiya, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Maheshwari,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2/objector that no case for anticipatory
bail is made out specially when his earlier bail application has already been
dismissed by this Court on merits, specifically observing that the custodial
interrogation of the applicant would be necessary, and his application has
also been dismissed by the Supreme Court, and he has also not properly
complied with the order passed by the Supreme Court and has not obtained
the title deeds of the property. Shri Bagadiya has also submitted that the
applicant is not interested in seeing to it that the applicant is arrested, if the
applicant complies with the order passed by the Supreme Court and executes
the sale deed in favour of the complainant.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary as also
the documents filed on record.
10. On due consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16075
5 MCRC-25589-2025
record, it is also found that in compliance with the order passed by the
Supreme Court in SLP No.4698/2024, dated 08/07/2024, the
applicant/Precision Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. has already settled its dues by
tendering the payment of Rs. 11 Crore (Rupees Eleven Crore) in the HDFC
Bank, and the Bank has also given its NOC to the Company of the applicant
and has also sent an email to the company on 27/11/2024 to meet the Bank
officials to retrieve the property documents. Admittedly, the applicant could
not obtain the documents from the HDFC Bank and hence, on 03/03/2025,
the company has also written to the Reserve Bank of India, Ombudsman
Department, Mumbai specifying that at the time of obtaining the loan amount
of Rs.16 Crores in the year 2016, the title deeds were also deposited with
HDFC Bank. Thus, the Company has already raised its grievance that
despite NOC obtained from the Bank regarding repayment of the aforesaid
amount in full and final, the title deeds have not been delivered to the
company.
11. In such circumstances, if the conduct of the applicant is tested on
the anvil of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.)
No.4698/2024, it appears that the applicant has tried its level best to obtain
the title deeds from the Bank by depositing Rs. 11 Crore, which by no means
a small amount, however, the Bank for the reasons best known to it has not
furnished the title documents to the applicant. Thus, it cannot be said that the
applicant has not tried comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court,
or has deliberately tried to circumvent the order passed by the Supreme
Court. It is also found that a civil suit has also been filed by the applicant's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16075
6 MCRC-25589-2025
side for cancellation of the agreement to sale dated 27/08/2022.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that in the changed scenario, the custodial interrogation of the
applicant does not appear necessary. Although it is true that he has evaded
his arrest since long, however, the liberty extended by the Supreme Court to
the applicant while rejecting his application for anticipatory bail with certain
observations, is a relevant consideration and cannot be ignored by this Court.
13. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the
event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only)
and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).
14. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the
Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other
conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
15. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case is allowed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
krjoshi
