Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Upma Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.18038 of 2019
(Ku. Upma Dixit vs. State of MP)
Indore, dated : 03.05.2019
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
non-applicant - State.
Shri U. S. Verma, learned counsel for the objector.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant
of bail. Applicant - Ku. Upma Dixit D/o Late G. P. Dixit is
implicated in Crime No.139/2019 registered at Police Station -
Palasiya District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 419, 406 and 34 of IPC and she is in custody since 18.04.2019.
As per the prosecution story, an agreement was entered into
between the complainant, heading Smartech Solution Center and Cell
Media Contents Pvt. Ltd., company of the applicant. Cell Media
Firm represented by CEO is supplier of Gazette Card, which is an
implement for protection of mobiles and also takes care of insurance
in the event of damages etc. As per the agreement, Smartech Solution
Center represented by Kiran Singh, Proprietor was assigned as the
super stockist of the Gazette Card supplied by the Cell Media Firm.
This agreement was executed on 01.03.2015. As per the prosecution
case, super stockist had invested more than Rs.36.00 lacs but the
super stockist was duped of this amount. Vinod Yadav and applicant
being the Directors of the Cell Media Firm committed breach of
promise and cheated complainant of this amount.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was
barely an employee and has pointed out the appointment letter dated
Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod
Date: 03/05/2019 16:01:05
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.18038 of 2019
(Ku. Upma Dixit vs. State of MP)
18.11.2014 of the applicant, in which she has been pointed as
Technical Consultant. He also submits that the applicant is in custody
since 18.04.2019 and that four persons have been termed to be
absconding. He has further pointed out excerpts from the objection
and submits that there is a computer generated hard copy of email in
which Head Ravi Sharma has addressed the applicant as Director of
Cell Media Firm. He also submits that in view of appointment letter
of the applicant, this carries no value.
It is submitted that the applicant was not director of the
company which was represented by Vinod Yadav only. He has also
brought to Courts attention other documents filed by him with
heading of "company master" in which the name of the Director of
the Cell Media Firm has been shown to be Vinod Tukaram Yadav
and Raju Alekar Raghunath. Thus, he submits that applicant was
barely an employee and has also left the company and has joined
another company and he has furnished relieving letter dated
10.10.2018 of the applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard, who has
submitted that matter is still under investigation and the applicant was
actively accompanying Vinod Yadav in its publicity programmes and
was giving assurance to the stockists and the distributors on behalf of
the company that their money would be returned. Hence, looking to
her acts on behalf of the company resulting to cheating the
distributors and stockists of lacs of rupees, this bail ought not to be
granted as the matter is still under investigation.
Considered rival contentions.
Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod
Date: 03/05/2019 16:01:05
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.18038 of 2019
(Ku. Upma Dixit vs. State of MP)
The documents prima-facie show at best that the applicant was
an employee of the company and the directors are Vinod Yadav and
Raju, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I allow this
bail application and it is directed that the applicant - Ku. Upma Dixit
shall be released on bail subject to her furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one local
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned
JMFC/CJM for her regular appearance before him or trial Court on
all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court
concerned during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall
abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the
Cr.P.C.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions :-
1.The applicant shall mark her presence in the concerned police station at Indore before the Investigating Agency once in a fortnight on Sunday of the month i.e. twice in a month till the charge-sheet is filed.
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, whenever called upon by the Investigating Agency.
3. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the Trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. The applicant will deposit her passport, if available, with the Investigating Agency, else file affidavit in this Court declaring that the applicant does not have any passport of any country, till the charge-sheet is filed and further, as per directions of the trial Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 03/05/2019 16:01:05 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.18038 of 2019 (Ku. Upma Dixit vs. State of MP) Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
M.Cr.C. No.18038/2019 is allowed and stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 03/05/2019 16:01:05