Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Neeta Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6628 of 2022
Between:-
SMT.NEETA SHRIVASTAVA W/O AMIT
SHRIVASTAVA , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL HIG, DINESH COMPLEX
RADHIKA NAGAR, SUPELA, P.S.SUPELA, DURG
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR MISHRA, ADOVATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S.VIJAY NAGAR P.S.VIJAYNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAGENDRA SOLANKI, PANEL LAWYER)
(BY SHRI SATENDRA DIXIT, OBJECTOR)
This mcrc coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Smt. Neeta Shrivastava was arrested on 12/9/2017 in connection with Crime No.287/2015 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 20-B of IPC and Section 6 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and Sections 3,4,5,6 of Chit Fund Matter.
As per prosecution case, the applicant and co-accused persons, who was the Director, Managing Director and Agent of Yash Dream Real Estate Ltd., had collected money from innocent persons assuring them to double their money within a short period. However, they did not pay the money even after the maturity periods. On the other hand, they closed down the company office and fled away Signature Not Verified SAN and thus, cheated the innocent people. Specific allegation against the applicant is Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 17:20:23 IST that the applicant was the Director of the company and she collected money from 2 the innocent person through their agents and embezzled that amount in connivance with other co-accused persons.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The applicant has no role to play in the Policy making/decision making affairs of the company. The property of the company was seized by SEBI and process for returning the amount of the people, who invested the money is going on. Co-accused Sindhu Singare has been granted bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 17/5/2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.7842/2020. So the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the basis of parity. The applicant is a lady and she is in custody since 12/9/2017. Charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant and all the other co-accused persons played fraud upon innocent investors and embezzled their amount. He further submits that the applicant was one of the Directors of the company and one of the main accused and she embezzled crores of rupees of innocent investors in connivance with the other co-accused persons and the applicant has criminal past and other similar type of the offences are also registered against the applicant. so, she should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is a lady, she is in custody since 12/9/2017 while trial is still pending and learned trial Court did not record the statement of any prosecution witness till today which shows that the conclusion of trial will take time, so looking to the custody period of the applicant, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for her appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the Signature Not Verified pendency of trial.
SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGHThis order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following Date: 2022.02.21 17:20:23 IST conditions by the applicant :-
31.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2.The applicant will cooperate in the trial;
3.The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6.The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
C.C. on payment of usual charges.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 17:20:23 IST