Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atul Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
-:1:-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(ATUL SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF M.P.)
M.Cr.C. No.6803/2018
Jabalpur, Dated 22/02/2018
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri VS. Mishra, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondent/State.
Case dairy perused and argument heard.
This first bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant Atul Shrivastava, who has been arrested on 20/01/2018 in connection with Crime No.3/2018 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, District Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
As per prosecution case complainant Deepak Verma lodged a written report at P.S. Crime Branch to the effect that he is resident of Bhopal and is a partner of Verma Travels Partnership Firm and his brother Anil Verma required a place in Kusha Bhau Thakre Bus Terminal for business purpose and he had knowledge that the co- accused Rupesh Shirode is a property dealer, who works under the name of Sarthak Associates and his father Madhukar Shirode also helps him in the said work. He further stated that co-accused Rupesh Shirode and Madhukar Shirode with an intention to cheat the him stated that plot No.41 in ISBT Kusha Bhau Thakre, BDA, Bhopal is being allocated in their name and they would get the allotment made directly in the name of complainant. Thereafter, they introduced co-accused Kamar Khan disguising his name as Ashok Malviya and stated that he is an Officer of the Bhopal Development Authority and they showed the complainant a vacant plot adjacent to Paliwal Hospital and on the basis of the conversation, they agreed to be allocated plot admeasuring 630 sq.feet for a consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-. In pursuance to the agreement the complainant issued a cheque in the name of Sarthak Associate for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of which the agreement was executed and it was further agreed that if the plot is not allotted to the -:2:- complainant, then the amount would be returned back to the complainant. It is further stated that co-accused Rupesh Shirode and his father issued a BDA allotment letter dated 21/04/2017 and further took an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant Deepak Verma and his brother Anil Verma and thereafter issued an amended letter dated 04/05/2017, which was signed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ashok Malviya and a receipt bearing No.306 dated 19/05/2017 was also issued for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, thereafter a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the complainant and his brother. On 24/04/2017 further a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid on the pretext that the said amount has to be deposited in the BDA. It is further stated that co-accused Rupesh Shirode and Madhukar Shirode took an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- from the complainant Deepak Verma and his brother Anil Verma on various dates. On 27/06/2017 the complainant received a letter from BDA wherein allotment of plot in Katara Hills Scheme was reflected, whereupon the complainant got suspicious and when he enquired from the Office of the BDA he was informed that no allotment has been made in favour of the complaint, then he tried to contact the co-accused. However, the co-accused refused to get in touch with the complainant or tender any explanation. On that Police registered the aforesaid crime number and investigated the matter. It is alleged against the applicant that the applicant is also involved in the crime and he in connivance with other co-accused persons prepared forged documents and one photocopy of the forged document is also seized from the possession of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. There is no evidence on record to connect the applicant in the aforesaid crime. Only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Rupesh Shirode, which is not admissible in evidence Police implicated the applicant in the offence. No allegation has been levelled by the complainant in the FIR -:3:- against the present applicant that he took money from the complainant or gave any false promise or gave him false documents. The applicant has no criminal past. The applicant is in custody since 20/01/2018 and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer stating that sufficient evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the crime. He further submitted that the applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons i.e. Rupesh Shirode, Madhukar Shirode, Kamar Khan and Lakshmi Chand took a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- from the complainant on the basis of forged documents. so he should not be released on bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and also it is not mentioned that the applicant took any money from the complainant and applicant is in custody since 20/1/2018 and trial will take considerable time to conclude, so without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the -:4:- case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
C.c. on payment of usual charges.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/ Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2018.02.23 15:23:02 +05'30'