Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51597 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAHESH PATIDAR S/O PUROSHTAM
PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O
PETLABAD, JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SHASHANK KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION KHAJRANA,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI BHUVAN DESHMUKH, LEARNED GA APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
O R D E R
This is the second repeat bail application under Section 439 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:53:52 PM 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. His first application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28/09/2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 44217/2022. The applicant is in custody since 26/08/2022 in connection with Crime No.839/2022 registered at Police Station - Khajrana, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
As per the prosecution story, the complainant received a call from the Dream Hub Company and on call he was told that the company deals in Herbal products, Cosmetics, Electrical, Fitness etc. He was also told that the Company wants to appoint him as a Distributor Pan India and the work is to sell the products online and on each product he will get the profit amounting to Rs.50-60 Thousand in every month. Thereafter the complainant deposited several amount in the Federal Bank and in total Rs.54,200/- were deposited and in return the complainant got nothing. Therefore, upon his complaint police authorities of Police Station - Khajrana registered the aforesaid case. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He is in custody since 26/08/2022. He is neither the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:53:52 PM 3 Proprietor nor has worked as an employee of the Company. He has no role to play in the Company. No allegation has been levelled against him in the written complainant. He never cheated the complainant. None of the SIM cards are in the name of the present applicant. Except the complainant Dilip, no one came forward by saying that they have been cheated by the Company for a certain amount. Applicant is not well educated person and he works as a Courier boy. Some of the co-accused person have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13/09/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.44044/2022 and 41849/2022. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. Applicant is fraudulently shown as Proprietor of Dream Hub Company. He is the permanent resident of Jhabua district and final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that present applicant is one of the Proprietor of the Dream Hub Company. Therefore, he does not deserve for bail.
Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:53:52 PM 4 nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that as per the business licence issued by the Municipal Corporation, Indore licence was found in the name of present applicant. As per the report dated 16/08/2022 of the Crime Branch, present applicant Mahesh Patidar and Purushottam are the Proprietor of the Dream Hub Company. One mobile phone along with seven SIM cards have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Therefore, prima facie claim of the present applicant that he is not the Proprietor of the said Company, cannot be accepted on the basis of the above primary evidence available on record. Being the Proprietor present applicant is responsible for all the act of the said Company.
In view of the prima facie evidence available on record against the applicant, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, this second repeat bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) J U D G E Tej Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 11/25/2022 5:53:52 PM