Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arpit Lawrence vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2020
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 MCRC-41836-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-41836-2019
(ARPIT LAWRENCE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 27-01-2020
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rahul Vijyavirgiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State
with the Investigating Officer Shri Jitendra Bhaskar.
Shri Annad Bhatt, learned counsel for the complainant wiht Shri Manish Parashar, complainant in person.
Shri Kamlesh Trivedi, purchaser of the land in question is also present.
Shri Adarsh Mathur, accused in person.
Ms. Neha Lawrence, w/o Arpit Lawrence (present applicant) is also present. This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant- Arpit Lawrence. His first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.08.2019 in M.Cr.C. No.30853/2019. The applicant is in jail since 07.02.2019 in connection with Crime No.666/2016 registered at Police Station- Chimanmandi, District-Ujjain for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC.
As per prosecution story, a plot ad-measuring 1000 sq.feet situated in 149 Gulmarg Bagh Colony, Agar Road, Ujjain was of the ownership and in possession of Late Shivnarayan Parashar, who had passed away on 17.08.2010. The present complainant Manish Parashar is his son. The complaint has been filed that the accused persons, namely; Arpit Lawrence, Adarsh Mathur and Pratap with a common intention through undue monitory game misrepresented to one Kamlesh Trivedi and Rahul Trivedi that the plot in question is available for sell, accordingly made an offer. Both the brothers fell in a trap laid down by the accused persons and agreed to purchase the plot. Co- accused Pratap impersonated as Shivnarayan and co- accused Arpit Lawrenc, the present applicant verified/identified the Pratap as Shivnarayan before the Registrar. Not only this, a Saving Bank Account was also opened in the SBI in the name of Late Shivnarayan for facilitating transactions. The sale deed was executed without verifications of actual owner. Accordingly, the case has been registered against the accused persons.
During the course of successive hearing, it transpired that co-accused Adarsh Mathur has been enlarged on bail by this Court on 29.09.2018 in M.Cr.C. Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 27/01/2020 17:29:15 2 MCRC-41836-2019 No.28638/2018. He was called through the I/O., he attended the number of hearings. Ms. Lawrence wife of the present applicant, complainant- Shri Manish Parashar, and buyer Rahul Trivedi have also been attending the hearings.
Mr. Mathur and Ms. Lawrence agreed without prejudice to their rights in the trial to make good the outstanding dues in the Bank- Aadhar Housing Finance Limited outstanding in the name of Rahul Trivedi. Accordingly, due amount has been paid and loan account has been closed on 07.01.2020 as stated by Shri Rahul Vijayvirgiya, learned Public Prosecutor at the Bar on instructions of the I/O Shri Jitendra Bhaskar.
Further, the sale deed in question has been cancelled on 02.12.2019 by the Fifth Civil Judge, Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.27-A/2018, based thereupon the Sub-Registrar, Ujjain has cancelled the sale deed. The original sale deed in the hands of Shri Kamlesh Trivedi has been handed over to the complainant.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to a large extent that the controversy is set at rest, relevant for the purposes of deciding this bail application. Accordingly, the application is considered on merits.
Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Investigation is complete and challan has been filed. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is no more required for further custodial interrogation. Applicant has suffered jail incarceration for almost a year. He is a sole bread earner in the family and due to his jail incarceration the family is at the verge of starvation. Hence, prays for enlargement on bail on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper.
Per contra, Shri Rahul Vijyavirgiya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the application supported the order impugned with the submission that applicant had remained absconding for over three years, hence, looking to his conduct, he is not entitled for bail.
This Court refrains from commenting upon the merits of the contentions so advanced but, regard being had to the fact that applicant has suffered jail incarceration for almost one year, co-accused Adarsh Mathaur has already been enlarged on bail (supra). Applicant has no criminal antecedents, not required for custodial investigation and challan has been filed, in the fitness of things applicant is held entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is hereby allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 27/01/2020 17:29:15 3 MCRC-41836-2019 of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 alongwith the following stringent conditions:
(i) Applicant shall not influence prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) Applicant shall mark his presence at the concerned Police Station on second and fourth Saturday every month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
(iii) In future, if the applicant is found to be involved in such nature of cases or any other similar criminal case or misuse the bail granted by this Court, the Investigating Officer concerned shall be at liberty to approach this Court through respondent/State for cancellation of bail.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 27/01/2020 17:29:15