Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrimati Meena Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 32777/2019
Shrimati Meena Jain Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 14/08/2019
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri D.S.
Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vinay Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the complainant. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.473/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC.
First application (M.Cr.C. No.28073/2018) was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2018 as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the trial Court and apply for regular bail.
Shri Deepak Khot has filed I.A. No.6318/2019 under Section 301 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the complainant seeking permission to assist the public prosecutor.
After hearing arguments and considering the contentions raised in the application specifically to the effect that it is the applicant who has executed multiple sale deeds to the same property, thus, duping huge amount of money of the complainant 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 32777/2019 Shrimati Meena Jain Vs. State of M.P. and that she is appearing in civil maters and filing affidavits but deliberately evading her appearance before the Court of criminal jurisdiction, I.A. is allowed.
Shri Deepak Khot is permitted to assist learned Public Prosecutor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co- accused/husband of the applicant, namely, Vinod Kumar Jain has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23871/2019 who was in custody with effect from 01.04.2019 in the same crime number on a condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 15 Lacs in favour of the complainant through a demand draft and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 Lacs along with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is submitted that total transaction between the present applicant and complainant is to the tune of Rs. 17 Lacs and since husband of the present applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 15 Lacs before the trial Court, anticipatory bail be extended in favour of present applicant.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State submits that it is not the amount only which is to be secured but the conduct of the party is equally important. It is submitted that 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 32777/2019 Shrimati Meena Jain Vs. State of M.P. applicant has entered into multiple transactions for the same property and has duped several persons. Proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C have been drawn and it is evident that crime was registered against the applicant in the year 2017 and she has been evading process of law for the last two years. She has not cooperated with the investigating authorities and is constantly avoiding cooperation required at her end.
Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the complainant submits that for the same property, applicant Smt. Meena Jain has entered into multiple transactions as will be evident from the copy of sale deed enclosed along with his application under Section 301 Cr.P.C. She has sold such plot in favour of one Geeta R/o Shankar Colony and then same plot has been sold in favour of present complainant. It is also submitted that applicant is appearing before the Civil Court and filing affidavits sworn at Shivpuri, as will be evident from copies of such affidavits enclosed by the complainant as Annexure P-2. It is also submitted that she is the main accused. She is the person who entered into all the transactions and the property/land belongs to her and not to her husband, therefore, extension of benefit of bail in favour of her husband will not entitle her to claim any parity and equality with her husband.
After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, this 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 32777/2019 Shrimati Meena Jain Vs. State of M.P. Court is of the opinion that the main accused is present applicant. She is involved in entering into multiple transactions for the same property which gives fair impression about her fraudulent intention. Besides this, contention put-forth by learned senior counsel at this stage, that she is only a proxy and it is her husband who has been carrying transactions in her name, even if believed, does not leave any iota of doubt that present applicant is instrumental in promoting such fraudulent act of her husband as she appears to be an educated woman who is putting her signatures on her affidavits as well as sale deed executed by her in favour of third person.
In view of such facts, this Court is of the opinion that if benefit of anticipatory bail is extended to the present applicant, that will result in permitting perpetuation of illegality and on the wrong side of law; therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, present M.Cr.C. filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal)
Aman Judge
Aman Tiwari
2019.08.16 19:40:58
+05'30'