Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahaveer Kotwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2017
MCRC-7480-2017
(MAHAVEER KOTWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22-05-2017
Shri Prahlad Choudhary, learned counsel, for the applicant.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent-State.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.42/2017 registered at Police Station Madan Mahal Jabalpur against him and 15 other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC.
The specific allegation against the applicant is that he has taken a loan of Rs.8,72,688/- (eight lakhs seventy two thousand six hundred eighty eight) payable on installments from the Deewan Housing Finance Limited (for short, "the Company") for purchase of a house on the basis of his pay-slips and other documents. Later, he defaulted in the repayment of loan. In the course of recovery proceedings of loan, it is found that he obtained the loan from the Company on the basis of forged pay-slips and other forged documents. It is to be noted that the total amount involved in the case is Rs.1,28,00,000/- (one crore twenty eight lakhs) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 31.1.2017. He submits that the applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. He submits that in the case as many as 15 other co-accused persons are involved and, therefore, the investigation will take long time to conclude and so is the trial of the case. He submits that the applicant has deposited Rs.70,000/- (seventy thousand) towards the loan with the Company out of the total loan amount. He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Jabalpur city and that he is an employee of Ordnance Factory Khamaria Jabalpur. Therefore, there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing in the course of trial of the case. He submits that this is the first ever criminal case registered against the applicant. He submits that the applicant is a lowly paid employee and, therefore, he is not in a position to deposit any amount at the time of furnishing bail-bonds. In the course of arguments, he has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2012 (1) G.L.H. 93. Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer on the ground that the applicant, being an employee of the Central Government undertaking, had forged pay-slips and other government documents whereupon he obtained the loan from the Company. His acts prove seriousness of the charges levelled against him. He also submits that this court has released some of the co-accused persons of the case on the condition of depositing 50% of the loan amounts taken from the Company. He submits that if this court is inclined to release the applicant on bail, then he shall be ordered to deposit 50% of the loan amount at the time of furnishing bail-bonds.
Upon going through the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), I am of the view that the law laid down in the said case is not applicable in the present case because this court is not declining to grant bail to the applicant but on certain conditions. Hence the law laid down in the said case is not applicable in the fact situation of the present case. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsels and the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail upon his depositing 50% of the loan amount which is near about Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs). Hence, the application is allowed. It is ordered that applicant Mahaveer Kotwar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and on depositing Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs) in cash for securing his presence on all such dates as may be fixed by it in the course of trial of the case. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump, the trial court will have power to cancel the applicant's bail. The court concerned is directed to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit and the disbursement of it shall be subject to final outcome of the trial. It is made clear that mere deposit of the aforesaid amount by the applicant would not adversely affect his defence. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ps