Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Bhilala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 August, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31800 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY BHILALA S/O SHRI RAMESH BHILALA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST NALKHEDA DISTRICT AGAR.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
( BY SHRI GOVIND PAL SINGH SONGARA- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
NALKHEDA DISTRICT AGAR. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA GA )
OBJECTOR BY SHRI SHANTANU SHARMA-
ADVOCATE)
______________________________________________________________________
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This is the second application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to FIR No.248/2022 registered at P.S -Nalkheda, District Agar (M.P.) for the offence under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 339(C) of MP Municipalities Act.
2/ As per the prosecution story, in the year 2009 complainant entered into a sale agreement with the co-accused Ramesh Chandra Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:12:14 PM 2 Bhilala and Kishore Chandra Bhilala for purchase of the disputed agricultural land admeasuring 2.307 hectare on a consideration of Rs. 22 lakhs per bigha and complainant made certain cash payment to co- ccused Ramesh and Kishore. Thereafter complainant through one Kamal Kishore Patidar gave Rs.5 lakhs to co-accused Ramesh and Kishore and executed one agreement dated 1.4.2021 whereby it was agreed that the remaining amount of consideration will be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Thereafter co-accused Kishore and Ramesh executed sale agreement dated 9.8.2021 of said land with Mohd. Farookh and on the basis of said agreement obtained permission to sale said land under the provisions of MPLRC. Accordingly case has been registered against the applicant and other accused persons 3/ Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. Applicant is in custody since 15/04/2023. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. Co-accused Ajay Bhilala has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12/10/2022 passed in MCRC no. 45435/2022 by this Court in similar circumstances. There is no evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the aforementioned offence. As per the FIR, sale agreement has been executed by Ramesh Bhilala and Kishor Bhilala. Being son of Kishore Bhilala, present applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Applicant is permanent resident of District- Agar. Final conclusion of trial shall take sufficient long time. Hence, he prays that the applicant be released on bail.
4/ Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent - State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:12:14 PM 3 present applicant is different from co-accused Ajay, who has been enlarged on bail. Applicant remained abscond earlier for long period. Four co-accused persons are still abscond, therefore, he does not deserve for bail.
5/ Learned counsel for the objector also opposed the application and prays for its rejection.
6/ Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case dairy.
7/ Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that although co-accused Ajay Bhilala has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12/10/2022, but case of present applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Ajay, because the applicant remained abscond for long period. Applicant's first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 30/08/2022, thereafter, he challenged the said order before Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same was also rejected, thereafter, he surrendered himself. Allegation levelled against the applicant is that he is creating pressure upon the complainant party and also threatening them. There is cogent evidence available on record against present applicant. Although his first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, but in the said order dated 15/05/2023, it is clearly mentioned that "when this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the applicant, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to withdraw this first bail application", therefore, first order passed in first bail application is treated as order on merit. The applicant has not pointed out any change in circumstances after rejecting his earlier bail application.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:12:14 PM 48/ In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this second bail application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C has no force and is hereby rejected.
CC as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 8/10/2023 5:12:14 PM