Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manjoor Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.44501/2018
(MANJOOR KHAN VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
JABALPUR Dated : 12.11.2018
Shri Manish Datt, learned Sr. counsel with Ms. Kishwar Khan
counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal, learned PL for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Manjoor Khan was arrested on 12/09/2018 in Crime No. 361/2018 registered at Police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa (M.P) for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 328, 323 and 365 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution case, on 09/09/2018 complainant Dharampal resident of village, Dhana, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh) lodged a report at Police Station Moghat Road, District Khandwa averring he is the owner of truck container bearing registration No.HP-12-D-5860. On 21/08/18 he got 494 Gas stoves and 520 mixers worth of Rs.20,50,000/- from Kesar appliances loaded in his truck through India Transport agency for delivering the same to T.T.K. Project Limited Hyderabad. Sukhwinder was the driver on the truck. On the way on 31/08/2018 he parked the truck at sundar Dhaba situated at Indore Khandwa road where co-accused Kasind Patel, Kallan, Shahrukh and Maharaj, workers of the said Dhaba after giving him some intoxicating substance assaulted and kidnapped him and thereafter looted the aforesaid material loaded in the truck. On that police registered crime No.361/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 328, 323 and 365 of the IPC against the co-accused Kasind Patel, Kallan, Shahrukh and Maharaj. During the investigation, it was found that said looted property i.e. gas stoves, and mixer grinders THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH were concealed in the house of the applicant. On that police seized that looted goods from the possession of applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid offence. Only allegation against the applicant is that co-accused stored the looted property in his house. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 12/09/2018 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant is also involved in the crime, so he should not be released on bail Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the looted property was seized by the police from the possession of the applicant from his house and he is involved in the crime and investigation is going on, so this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Hence application is rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge vs Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2018.11.15 11:45:14 +05'30'