Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 16th OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19851 of 2022
Between:-
SANDEEP S/O PARASMAL JAIN (SHEKHAWAT),
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O. SIKSHAK COLONY,
PIPLIYAMANDI, TEHSIL MALGARGARH,
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PORUSH RAKA, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
PIPLIYAMANDI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. GEETANJALI CHOURASIA, P.L. FOR STATE )
This application coming on for this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
With the consent, heard finally. Perused the case diary. This is the third bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by the applicant for grant of bail, as he has been arrested on 3.7.2021 in connection with Crime No.223/2021, registered at police station - Pipliyamandi, District Mandsaur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC.
Applicant's first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C was dismissed Signature Not Verified SAN on merit vide order dated 8.9.2021, passed by this Court in Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE M.Cr.C.No.35665/2021, stating therein that investigation is still in progress. His Date: 2022.06.17 13:04:20 IST 2 second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.2.2022 passed by this court in M.Cr.C.No.7744/2022.
Prosecution case in brief is that applicant along with his father co- accused who was licensee to purchase agriculture produce in Krishi Upaj Mandi took agriculture produce from 22 complainants / farmers and did not pay the value of agriculture produce amount about Rs.77-78 lacs to them and when complainants tried to approach the applicant and his father co-accused, they remained untraceable and misappropriated the amount of the aforesaid agriculture produce received from the complainants.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was in the aforesaid business for last 15 years and continuously trading with the complainants and it cannot be inferred that he with an intent to cheat them took their agriculture produce therefore ingredients of Section 420 of IPC do not attract in the matter. As per prosecution case itself complainants sold their agriculture produce to the applicant therefore, ingredients of Section 409 of IPC also do not attract in the case.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal, AIR 1968 S.C. 700 wherein it has been held that the expression "entrustment" carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that out of 22 complainants, 10 Signature Not Verified SAN have been examined and none of them have supported the case of the Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE prosecution. All the aforesaid complainants admitted in their cross - Date: 2022.06.17 13:04:20 IST 3 examination that they have received partial amount for the agriculture produce sold by them to the applicant. Applicant could not pay the amount of agriculture produce to the complainant only because of lock-down. Conclusion of trial will take time. His father co-accused Parasmal has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.2.2022 passed by this court in M.Cr.C.No.7744/2022. In the aforesaid circumstances, he is also entitled for grant of bail.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant with an intent to cheat the complainants took their agriculture produce amounting to Rs.77-78 lacs and misappropriated the same. Offences alleged against him are serious in nature. Material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the applicant as well as the provisions of Section 420 and Section 409 of IPC and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal (supra) and also considering the fact that he is in custody since 3.7.2021, this court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
It is directed that the applicant (Sandeep S/o. Parasmal Jain) is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on all such Signature Not Verified SAN dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial court during the pendency of Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of SUKHDEVE Date: 2022.06.17 13:04:20 IST 4 Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
The application stands allowed and disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE SS/-
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Date: 2022.06.17 13:04:20 IST