Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajbushan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2016
1
M.Cr.C.No.10173/2016
(Rambhajan Singh Vs. State of M.P.)
19.12.2016
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Arun Barua, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.233/2016 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
According to the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant is that he was known to complainant-Ankur Gupta. The applicant went to the complainant along with some persons saying that he wants to sell his land. The complainant asked his name who disclosed his name as Harishankar and Shivlal his grandfather. Thereafter, on 21.05.2016 Brajbhushan and Harishankar came along with Shivlal who disclosed his name as Shivlal and went to the advocate and thereafter Harishankar submitted his voter card to the counsel of the complainant who drafted the documents. They also mentioned the name of complainant's mother who was known to Shivlal. The complainant paid Rs.11,40,000/- to a person who came with Brajbhushan and Harishankar who disclosed his name Shivlal. After execution of the sale-deed when complainant went to mutation his name then Patwari told that the photo pasted in the sale-deed is Badan Singh. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR has been registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. He has not identified Shivlal. In the registered sale-deed, the witness is Rajni who is mother of the complainant. There is no 2 likelihood of absconsion of the applicant. On these grounds, prayed for bail.
Learned Government Advocate and counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the application.
Perused the case diary.
Taking into consideration that in the registered sale-deed the applicant has not signed as a witness but his mother and Harishankar identified Shivlal and there is no likelihood of absconsion of the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(D.K. Paliwal) Judge bj/-