Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramzan Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Ramzan Khan Vs. State of M.P.)
1 M.Cr.C. No. 2885/2019
Gwalior dated 05/02/2019
Shri Pawan Devnani, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Purushottam Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Shri Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. Case Diary is perused.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 299/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story, short facts of the case are that a sale deed was executed on 05/05/2018 in favour of the applicant by the complainant. The applicant kept the entire consideration of money in a bag and handed over the same to the complainant at the time of execution of the sale deed for sale of agricultural land in favour of the applicant. The complainant was familiar with the applicant for last several years, therefore, he neither opened the bag which was locked nor counted the money kept in the bag and executed the sale deed in favour of the applicant. After execution of the sale deed, the applicant told the complainant that they would count the money in the home and when they reached the home, the applicant told the complainant that he would bring the key of the bag kept in his car and thereafter, he ran away from the spot. Thereafter, when the complainant opened the said bag in front of the witnesses, he found that the bag was filled with pieces of bottles, stones, empty box of mobile phone and few pieces of paper and no sale consideration money was kept inside HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Ramzan Khan Vs. State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2885/2019 the bag. On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a youth of 25 years, who has no criminal antecedents and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the applicant, he kept the entire consideration of money in a bag and handed over the same to the complainant at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the applicant before the Registrar and the Registrar also confirmed the same from the complainant on which he replied affirmatively that he has received the entire money of consideration for sale of the agricultural land. It is submitted that the ingredients of offence of cheating are missing in the present case. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no evidence against the applicant of commission of alleged offence. The applicant is permanent resident of District Shivpuri and there are no chances of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application on the ground that applicant has decepted the complainant by making false and misleading representation and played fraud with him. The applicant is absconding since date of registration of FIR. The investigation is pending and custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and, therefore, no definite conclusion can be arrived at, at this stage, and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Ramzan Khan Vs. State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 2885/2019 the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The application, therefore, stands rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N. DURGEKAR 2019.02.11 14:58:57 +05'30'