Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Vitthal Rao Kale vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32760 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NITIN VITTHAL RAO KALE S/O VITTHAL RAO KALE,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SOCIAL
WORKER RAJWADA SATPUR TRYAMBAK ROAD
SATPUR NASHIK NEAR CHAVADI NASHIK INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE NASHIK MAHARASHTRA 422007
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SURYAKANT JAT AND SHRI RUDRA PRATAP SINGH KAURAV,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION PHOOPH
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. ANKITA MATHUR- P.P.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL).
This application coming on for admission hearing this day, th e court
passed the following:
ORDER
The applicant has filed this First application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Phoop, District Bhind in connection with crime No. 0253/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
Allegations against the present applicant /accused, in short, is that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM 2 applicant along with co-accused impersonated themselves as the employees of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted documents had taken Rs. Three Lakhs from the complainant and cheated him.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated. He further argued that applicant is the only earning member of his family. He further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the present applicant/accused had taken Rs. Three Lakhs from the complainant. He further argued that even name of the applicant has been wrongly mentioned in the FIR. He further argued that the applicant is a social worker in Maharashtra and a reputed person, but just to malign his image, present FIR has been lodged against him. The father's name and address of the applicant /accused has also not been mentioned in the FIR. Allegedly, Rs. Three Lakhs was given on 20/02/2021 by the complainant to the applicant, however, FIR was lodged after delay of almost two years on 05/11/2022 and no plausible explanation has been put forth by the prosecution, which indicates afterthought FIR. The applicant is in custody since 17/07/2023. Investigation is nearing completion and further custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required. The applicant is permanent resident of District Nasik, Maharashtra State. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary available on record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM 3Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;
2) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3 ) The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4) The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Bench.
5) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7) The applicant shall appear and mark his attendance before the SHO of the police station concerned once in every first week of the Month at 10 Am until the investigation is concluded, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM 4Learned State counsel is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.
E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Durgekar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 05-Aug-23 12:44:59 PM