Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Hazari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32228 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SACHIN HAZARI S/O SHRI SUKHLAL HAZARI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 63 RAJA
RAM AVENUE TULSI NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI VINAY SARAF, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ANIRUDH MALPANI,
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION RAOJI BAZAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
(SHRI GIRISH DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant/accused is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR/Crime No.191/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station Raoji Bazar, District Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.
2. Prosecution story in short is that the complainant Sanjay Malviya Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 08-08-2023 18:42:57 2 purchased agricultural land bearing survey Nos.279 and 280, area of 2.24 hectares and 0.50 hectare, total of 2.74 hectares situated at village Padalya, District Dewas from co-accused Leela Bai Choudhary through registered sale deed on 15.06.2021. Thereafter, co-accused Leela Bai, her son Mishri Lal, Rajesh, Arvind Singh Tomar and the present applicant entered into a conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Present applicant and Smt. Leela Bai (1st Party) have executed an agreement to sale (Annexure-A/4) in respect of the aforesaid land in the favour of co-accused Mishri Lal (2nd Party) by showing the date 05.11.2020. The aforesaid agreement is ante-dated and is written on forged stamp paper. Co-accused persons Arvind Singh Tomar and Rajesh Hazari have witnessed the agreement (Annexure-A/4). An FIR was lodged on 01.06.2023 against the present applicant and co-accused persons.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. There already existed an agreement to sale between the seller of the said property, present applicant Sachin Hazari, Leela Bai and Mishrilal executed on the firm's letterhead of present applicant. The questioned agreement to sell the land is Annexure-A/4. A civil suit has been filed by Kisan Farms through Sachin Hazari against co-accused Sanjay Malviya and Smt. Leelabai for seeking relief of specific performance of agreement dated 05.11.2020, declaration of sale deed in favour of Sanjay Malviya as null and void vide Civil Suit No.40A/2022 (Annexure-A/6).
4. It has further been argued that the present applicant in essence had already entered into an agreement to sale of the subject land with Leela Bai vide agreement dated 05.11.2020 for the consideration of Rs.57,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. Copy of documents is attached Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 08-08-2023 18:42:57 3 (Annexure-A/5). Earlier, complainant Sanjay Malviya had filed a written complaint to the police, Dewas. After inquiry of the matter, DSP, Dewas had filed a report dated 14.02.2023 wherein it was found that the matter is of civil nature. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR at police station Raoji Bazar, Indore. This Court has granted bail to the co-accused Rajesh Hazari vide order dated 26.06.2023 passed in MCRC No.26004/2023. However, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that co-accused Rajesh has been granted bail on the basis that he is only signatory of the questioned agreement. It is further submitted that the matter is of civil nature. Applicant is a reputed person. Police is trying to arrest him and if the police arrests him, his reputation will be spoiled, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. He has placed reliance on the case of Pratibha Manchanda and Anr. V State of Haryana and Anr. [2023 Legal Eagle (SC) 683], wherein the Apex Court held in paragraph-16 as under-
"16. It goes without saying that the alleged offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores of rupees are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent upon us to analyze the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation."
5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector have objected the prayer by submitting that present applicant is the party of the questioned agreement and the stamp papers of the questioned agreement was issued from the treasury on 14.09.2021 and from the stamp vendor on 21.09.2021, while the agreement was executed Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 08-08-2023 18:42:57 4 showing prior date of 05.11.2020. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant has committed forgery. He is the main accused of the incident. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the case diary so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the alleged act of present applicant, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. Resultantly, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 08-08-2023 18:42:57