Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 9th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7494 of 2022
Between:-
SHIV KUMAR TIWARI S/O RAMDAS TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O
214, MAHAVIR BAGH COLONY, INDORE ROAD ,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKASH RATHI, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
DHAMNOD, DISTRICT-DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI GOVIND PUROHIT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
MS. SHAILLEY KHATRI, ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
01. This is second application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, as the applicant is implicated in connection with Crime No.407/2020 registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 420, 406 of IPC and Section 4, 6(1) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000.
02. First application of the applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 06.01.2022 in M.Cr.C. No.55273 of 2021.
03. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that subsequent to rejection of first application, co-accused Jagannath Parihar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2022 in M.Cr.C. No.7939 of 2022. The case of the applicant is similar to the case of co-accused Jagannath Parihar and the applicant is having complete parity with him hence, he also deserves to be granted the same benefit. Numerous documents have been brought Signature Not Verified SAN on record by applicant in support of the contention that the case of the applicant is Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.10 14:49:56 IST similar with co-accused who have been granted bail. It is contended that in the 2 documents which have been issued on behalf of the company, it is Jagannath Vishwakarma and others who had signed and applicant has not signed upon them. The applicant has only been a sleeping partner in the company and had no active role to play in the same.
04. It is further submitted that the bank account of applicant does not show that any amount has been received by the applicant to show that he has benefited in any manner from the allegations as have been levelled against him. In any case applicant is possessed of land valuing more than the total amount which has been said to have been misappropriated in the instant case and the applicant is ready to deposit the amount in installments. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.53956 of 2021 (Dilip Vyas vs. State of M.P.) decided on 15.12.2021, M.Cr.C. No.8790 of 2020 (Vijay Rahangdle vs. State of M.P.) decided on 02.03.2020 and M.Cr.C. No.16822 of 2021 (Poonamchand Jaiswal vs. State of M.P.) decided on 14.07.2021 to contend that under similar circumstances accused therein have been granted bail hence the applicant be also released on bail.
05. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the objector submitting that there are no changed circumstances warranting grant of bail to the applicant.
06. It is seen that first application of the applicant was dismissed by detailed order dated 06.01.2022 i.e. less than a period of three months ago. The documents which have been brought on record in the present application are not a part of the case diary and the challan paper. Though co-accused Jagannath Parihar has been granted bail subsequent to rejection of previous application of the applicant but the same does not benefit the applicant at present. In all the cases relied upon by the applicant bail had been granted at the first instance of consideration of the case on merits, whereas in the present case, first application of the applicant has already been dismissed on merits only a short while back. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready to deposit 20% of the amount Signature Not Verified SAN being a 20% share holder in the company, under the present circumstances, is too Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA early to be considered as the previous application has been dismissed only Date: 2022.03.10 14:49:56 IST 3 recently. Thus in my opinion, there are no changed circumstances warranting grant of bail to the applicant. Application is accordingly dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2022.03.10 14:49:56 IST