Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.33746 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
DHARMENDRA NAYAK, SON OF SHRI LAXMAN
SINGH NAYAK, AGED: ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT:
POST DHRUVA, TEHSIL KURWAI, DISTRICT
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH).
........APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKRAM KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
POLICE STATION G.R.P. (B.G.), DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DINESH SAVITA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the Court
passed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Case diary is available.
2. This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail, as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-Sep-23 5:44:38 PM 2 connection with Crime No.427/2023 registered at Police Station G.R.P. (B.G.), District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that about four years' prior to the date of incident, i.e.23/6/2023, the applicant in connivance with co-accused Ankit persuaded co-accused Narendra Banjara to appear in the offline examination of Railway, Group-C and assured to get him selected on the post of T.C. on payment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2019, the applicant took co-accused Narendra Banjara to Delhi, where co-accused Narendra Banjara alongwith 10-12 persons appeared in the examination. Applicant also took an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the co-accused Narendra Banjara through Phonepay for giving the same to co-accused Ankit. A total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was taken by the applicant as well as co-accused Ankit from co-accused Narendra Banjara. On 16/6/2023 co-accused Narendra Banjara received a forged and fabricated Joining Letter of Delhi Division through Speed Post, whereafter he went to Delhi and met co-accused Ankit, who provided him a forged and fabricated ID card and told him to undergo training of ticket checking in between Datia to Gwalior in Bundelkhand Express. Thereafter, on 23/6/2023 the co-accused Narendra Banjara was caught by the Railway Officials at Gwalior while he was checking the tickets of the passengers travelling in Bundelkhand Express pretending himself to be a T.C.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter only on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused Narendra Banjara recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It has been alleged against the applicant that he Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-Sep-23 5:44:38 PM 3 alongwith other co-accused Ankit received in all about Rs.1,40,000/- from the co-accused Narendra Banjara through Phonepe and various other modes for providing job and thereafter, gave forged and fabricated joining letter, ID card etc. to him, but statement of bank account of the applicant or any other document has not been produced in this regard. There is nothing on record to suggest the involvement of the applicant in the crime, who is a young boy aged about 30 years. His custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. In support of his prayer, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and submits that specific allegations have been alleged against the applicant that he received some of the amounts through Phonepe on his mobile bearing No.7879419122. Present bank account of the applicant connected with aforesaid mobile number was opened after the incident, therefore, his custodial interrogation is very much required in the case. The allegations alleged against the applicant are very heinous in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record against the applicant, so also the fact that requirement of his custodial interrogation cannot be denied at this stage as well as considering the guidelines mentioned in para 122 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-Sep-23 5:44:38 PM 4 Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) cited by learned counsel for the applicant, in view of this Court, applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 7.1 Certified copy as per Rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Arun* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 19-Sep-23 5:44:38 PM