Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rinku @ Anil Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-14713-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-14713-2021
(RINKU @ ANIL JAIN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 02-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Yadav, Investigating Officer of Crime No. 102/2020 registered at P.S. Ishanagar, Distt. Chhatarpur (MP) is remain present.
Case diary perused.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he does not want to press the application in respect of applicant nos.1,2 & 3 namely Rinku @ Anil Jain, Kamlesh Asati and Shivam Agrawal.
Accordingly, the application filed on behalf of applicant nos.1,2 & 3 namely Rinku @ Anil Jain, Kamlesh Asati and Shivam Agrawal is dismissed as not pressed.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant nos.4,5,6,7,8 and 9 namely Raghuveer Yadav, Prabhat Sahu, Anuj Kumar Jain, Prabha Devi Jain, Mathura Asati and Narendra Asati under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.102/2020, registered at P.S. Ishanagar, Distt. Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC and Section 76 of the Chit fund Act,1982.
As per prosecution case, the applicants and co-accused person, who were the Chairman and Agents of Pincon Group of Company collected huge amount from innocent persons assuring them to double their money within a stipulated period. However, they did not pay the money even after the maturity periods. On the other hand, they closed down the company Office and embezzled the huge amount of innocent people. Thus, they cheated innocent people. The specific allegation against the applicants are that they are the agent of the company and they induced the complainant/other innocent people to deposit the money with the company.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not committed Signature Not Verified SAN any offence and have falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no evidence on Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.08.02 17:13:25 IST 2 MCRC-14713-2021 record to show that the applicants induced anybody to deposit the money with the company or they collected the money from any investor. Applicant no.7 is a lady aged about 60 years. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, their reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicants pray for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicants and other accused person played fraud upon innocent investors and deprived them of their hard earned money. The applicants are the agents of the company. The offence under Section 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 is also made out against the applicants. According to Section 14 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, anticipatory bail is barred. So they should not be released on anticipatory bail.
It is alleged that the applicants who were the agents of the company in connivance with the other co-accused induced them to double their money within a stipulated period and embezzled the huge amount of the innocent people.
So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 14 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Hence, the application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.08.02 17:13:25 IST