Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh Narwariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2016
Mcrc.3962/16
Ragvendra Singh Narwariya Vs. State of M.P.
31/5/16
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Sangeeta Pachori, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.
The petitioner has been arrested on 2/2/2016 by Police Station
Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.264/13,
registered in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468, 120-B of I.P.C., section 3(4)(6)of Nikshepako Ke Hiton Ka
Sarkshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and 45-1-A, 45(S), 58-B(5-A)of RBI Act.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application
and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the
allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail
is made out.
The charge-sheet has since been filed after completion of
investigation where the allegation against the petitioner alongwith other
co-accused Dyanand Narwariya and Kunwar Singh who are all Directors
of the Company concerned is of accepting certain amounts with the
assurance of allotting plots but the said assurance did not materialize.
On perusal of the case-diary it does not appear that the case of the
petitioner is different than the case of other co-accused including
Dyanand Narwariya and Kunwar Singh who have since been enlarged on
bail by order dated 9/7/2014 and 25/6/2014 in Misc. Cri.C.No. 4048/14
and Misc.Cri.No. 3790/14 as well as of other co-accused Mahesh Paliwal
& another on 8/1/2016 in Misc.Cri.C.No. 11155/15.
In view of above, this court does not see any reason to take a
different view than the one taken by the coordinate bench in case of
above said co-accused. Therefore considering these facts and that the
trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial
detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and the material
placed on record does not disclose possibility of the petitioner fleeing
Mcrc.3962/16
Ragvendra Singh Narwariya Vs. State of M.P.
from justice, this court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the
petitioner.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the
case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with two solvent sureties
each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial
Court.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the
following conditions :-
1.The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
6. The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) (Vivek Agarwal)
Vacation Judge Vacation Judge
(Bu)