Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Mantri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2017
MCRC-5727-2017
(SANJAY MANTRI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
09-05-2017
Shri S.R.Sexana, Advocate for applicant.
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for non-applicant. Shri Kunal Thakre, Advocate for objector.
This is third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 418, 420, 471, 120B of IPC in connection with Crime No.236/2016 registered at Police Station T.T.Nagar, District Bhopal on being rejection of the first bail application as withdrawn and the second bail application on merits with certain observations vide orders dated 12.9.2016 and 4.11.2016 passed in MCRC No.13947/2016 and MCRC No.18717/2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the earlier two bail applications have been rejected under the pretext that the amount of consideration which has been taken by the applicant ought to be returned and deposited in the Court but infact looking to the fact that no transaction has taken place and the said fact could not have been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing earlier, therefore, ignoring such observation of deposit of the amount, this bail application may be considered on merits.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire facts of this case, it is apparent that the plea as taken by learned counsel for the applicant is misplaced, therefore, repelled. Insofar as the mertis of the matter is concerned, it is a case wherein on the basis of a power of attorney of the original holder, who is none else but the mother in law, the applicant has disposed the entire house situated in the porsche vicinity of Bhopal in the name of the various persons and in that regard material is available on record. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case wherein the applicant can be enlarged on bail Accordingly, this third bail application filed by the applicant also stands dismissed on merit.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE amit