Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.19210/2018
(Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P.)
&
M.Cr.C. No.19184/2018
(Ramswaroop Vs. State of M.P.)
Jabalpur, Dated: 03.07.2018
Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Yogesh Soni,
counsel for the petitioner Devendra in M.Cr.C.No.19210/2018
and petitioner Ramswaroop in M.Cr.C.No.19184/2018.
Shri D. Mishra, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Since, both the miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
Heard on these first applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Devendra Kumar and Ramswaroop in crime no.120/2018 registered by P.S.-Chand, District- Chhindwara under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution case, petitioner Devendra was Manager of Service Co-operative Society, Panchgaon and petitioner Ramswaroop was Computer Data Entry Operator therein. The Society was entrusted with the task of procuring Wheat and Maize under Chief Minister Bhavantar Payment Scheme for farmers. A complaint against both the petitioners was received and a Committee comprising Superintendent Land Records, Deputy Director Agriculturalist and Deputy Collector, Chhindwara enquired into the matter and found that the petitioners, in order to secure benefits for themselves had committed several irregularities and illegalities in registering their relatives as farmers. They had forged government documents and had made false entries in the online portal and had made illegal payment of Rs.3,31,595/- to their relatives and 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.19210/2018 (Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) & M.Cr.C. No.19184/2018 (Ramswaroop Vs. State of M.P.) has thus caused loss to the exchequer of aforesaid amount. For aforesaid purpose, they had entered into criminal conspiracy. It has been observed in the report that the original documents relating to land records of registered farmers are missing. It has also been observed that if a thorough enquiry in conducted, serious mistakes and a wide ranging scam may be discovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners registered farmers under the scheme on the recommendation of Patwari. It was not the part of their duties to verify documents. It has also been submitted that in order to demonstrate their bona fides, they are prepared to deposit the amount under protest in the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application by submitting that this is a wide ranging fraud, the contours whereof are not clear as yet. It is obvious from the report of the Committee enquiring into the matter, that a thorough enquiry is required. This is such a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioners is imperative. The defence of the petitioners is not sustainable because the beneficiaries are related to them; therefore, it has further been submitted that in spite of offer of the petitioners to deposit the defalcated amount, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent State; in the opinion of this Court, petitioners do not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.
3THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.19210/2018 (Devendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) & M.Cr.C. No.19184/2018 (Ramswaroop Vs. State of M.P.) Consequently, these first applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Devendra Kumar and Ramswaroop, are dismissed.
(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge sh Digitally signed by S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Date: 2018.07.04 18:24:09 +05'30'