Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-49649-2018
(RAJESH NAMDEO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, dated: 11.02.2019
Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.398/2018 registered at Police Station Stationganj for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 109 and 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 184 and 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Sections As per the prosecution story, on 12.07.2018 on information of the informant, the police party have intercepted a vehicle Swaraj Mazda No.MP20-GA-0175 loaded with illicit liquor near bypass road. The said vehicle was overturned and the police seized 2656 bulk litres liquor from the said vehicle. The applicant has been made accused on the basis of backdated forged rent agreement, which has been shown to be executed between the applicant and co- accused Nikunj Vyas, who was alleged to drive the vehicle when it was overturned; and later on, recovered with the huge quantity of illicit liquor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant. No case of similar nature has previously been registered against the Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/02/2019 02:35:06 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-49649-2018 (RAJESH NAMDEO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon his. There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application and submitted that the alleged vehicle in which the illicit liquor was transported belongs to the applicant.
Undisputedly, the vehicle is registered in the name of the applicant. The investigation agency have found the sale agreement of the vehicle in favour of the co-accused Nikunj Vyas to be backdated, forged and fake. Offence is said to be taken place on 12.07.2018 and the applicant is absconding since then.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned Panel Lawyer and looking to the gravity of the offence, without commenting upon the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-Rajesh Namdeo.
Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicant, stands dismissed.
(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 12/02/2019 02:35:06