Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2015
MCRC-19697-2015
(NEERAJ JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
01-12-2015
Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Chetan Jaggi,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime no. 270/2015 registered at Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat against him and co-accused persons namely, Ku. Anita, Mamta and Akash for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 120-B of the IPC.
Prosecution allegations are that the applicant and the co-accused persons had taken from five informants Rs. 20,000/- âeachâ for securing jobs of the Forest Guards in the Forest Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh for them but they have not provided them the aforesaid jobs.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 24.07.2015 and the charge sheet had been filed. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is a 32 years old youth and that he runs an N.G.O. for the benefits of general public. It is also submitted by him that this is the first ever offence registered against the applicant and he does not have any criminal antecedents. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One lac) under protest at the time of furnishing the bail-bonds in the court concerned. Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer mainly on the ground that the applicant is the main accused of the case as at his behest the co-accused persons collected the money from the informants. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the fact that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- under protest at the time of furnishing the bail-bonds, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant bail to the applicant with certain conditions. Allowing this application, it is ordered that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned for his appearance on all such dates as may be fixed by it in this regard, subject to depositing of Rs. 1,00,000/- under protest in the court concerned at the time of furnishing bail- bonds. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump, the Court concerned will have power to cancel the applicant's bail. The Court concerned is directed not to release the amount to any person in the course of trial without the permission of this Court. However, the trial Court will have the discretion to pass an appropriate order with regard to the amount at the conclusion of the trial subject to the period of limitation of the appeal. It is made clear that the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the applicant would not be construed as admission of guilt of the alleged offences by him at the time of passing of final order/judgment. In simple words, the order of depositing the amount is merely a condition of granting bail to the applicant. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE