Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mishrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 May, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18263 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MISHRILAL S/O LAXMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 44
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
SULLAKHEDI, TEHSIL SANWER, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION RAOJI BAZAR,
INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANT/STATE
(SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
(SHRI DEEPAK PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for order this day, th e Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant/accused, relating to FIR/Crime No.191/2023 dated (not mentioned) registered at Police Station Raoji Bazar, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120- B of IPC.
2. Prosecution story, in short is that the complainant Sanjay Malviya had purchased agricultural land bearing survey Nos.279 and 280, area of 2.24 Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 30-05-2024 10:21:31 2 hectares and 0.50 hectare, total of 2.74 hectares situated at village Padalya, District Dewas from co-accused Leela Bai Choudhary through registered sale deed on 15.06.2021. Thereafter, applicant Mishrilal, his mother/co-accused Leela Bai Choudhary, Sachin, Arvind Singh Tomar and Rajesh Hazari entered into a conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Co-accused persons Sachin Hazari and Smt. Leela Bai Choudhary had executed a forged agreement to sale in respect of aforesaid land in the favour of present applicant Mishrilal by showing the date 05.11.2020 in the agreement. The aforesaid agreement is ante-dated and is written on forged stamp paper. Co-accused persons Arvind Singh Tomar and Rajesh Hazari had witnessed the agreement.
An FIR was lodged on 01.06.2023 against the present applicant and co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that the aforesaid stamp paper had been duly purchased and are not a forged stamp paper. It has not been stated that the applicant has prepared the forged stamp paper therefore, prima-facie, offence u/S 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that one civil suit bearing registration No.40-A/2022 has been filed by co-accused Sachin Hazari for cancellation of aforesaid sale deed, which is under consideration. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Applicant is in custody since 13.04.2024. Trial will take sufficient long time for its disposal. The dispute is civil in nature therefore, it is prayed that present applicant/accused be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State as well Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 30-05-2024 10:21:31 3 as counsel for the objector have objected the prayer and submits that the applicant and co-accused persons have prepared forged agreement to sale and on the basis of aforesaid agreement, a civil suit has been filed. The offence is serious in nature therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusal of the case diary so also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
6. It is directed that applicant- Mishrilal shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for his appearance before the concerned Court regularly on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.
8. With the aforesaid, this application is allowed and stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE gp Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 30-05-2024 10:21:31