Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Lata Bhargav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2015
Author: U.C.Maheshwari
Bench: D.K.Paliwal, U.C.Maheshwari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DB HON'BLE MR JUSTICE U.C.MAHESHWARI, &
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.K.PALIWAL
MISC.CRI CASE NO.2255 OF 2015
Smt.Lata Bhargava alias Hemlata
-Vs-
State of MP
Shri R.C.Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri BK Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order
( Passed on 15th day of May, 2015 )
Per U.C.Maheshwari, J.
On behalf of the petitioner, this second repeat petition has been preferred under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, as her earlier petition filed in this regard was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed vide order dated 26/2/2015 in MCRC 1156/2015, by extending liberty to revive the prayer after filing of the charge sheet and it appears that this petition has been filed under such liberty.
2. Petitioner is in custody since 23/01/2015 in connection with Crime No.470/2011 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, section 3(1)(2)(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sarankshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and sections 45(S) and 58(B) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
3. Petitioner's counsel, after taking us through the bail petition and the paper placed on record along with the earlier rejection order of this Court as well as the impugned rejection order of the Sessions Court argued that even if the evidence collected by the investigating agency and submitted 2 MCRC 2255/2015 along with the charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C., is taken into consideration as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of any of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner, and in such premises, she has been falsely implicated in the matter. In continuation, he said that the petitioner never remained active Director of the alleged company, thus it could not be said that any of the alleged acts to defraud any victim or beneficiary was committed by her. In continuation, he said that the first information report was not registered at the instance of any of the defrauded persons; the same has been registered in the name of sub Inspector, Police namely D.S.Thakur, posted at the aforesaid police station, for the offence under section 420 of IPC. He also said that any of the alleged offences of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or under Reserve Bank of India Act are also not made out against the petitioner. In further argument, he said that in any of the alleged offences, the sentence of life imprisonment has not been prescribed under the law, so during pendency of the trial, the petitioner should not be detained by way of pre-trial detention. Petitioner has already suffered near about four months in judicial custody and trial of the case will take considerable long time for its conclusion.
4. Apart from the aforesaid, he also said that the petitioner being a woman is entitled for extending benefit of bail. In addition, it was argued that co-accused of the impugned crime situated in the similar circumstances have been extended benefit of bail by orders of this Court on earlier occasions. In support of such contention, he also referred to copy of certain orders passed by this Court and prayed for extending benefit of bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity also. Apart from the aforesaid, it was also argued that 3 MCRC 2255/2015 name of the present petitioner was implicated at belated stage of investigation only on the basis of the interrogatory statements of some of the witnesses. With these submissions, he prayed to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner by allowing this petition.
5. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments with the assistance of the case diary, State counsel submitted that looking to the nature of the offences and the manner in which it was committed by the company in which the petitioner was Director, according to which, in the name of such company by giving offers regarding monetary benefits to the public at large, contrary to the provisions of Reserve Bank of India Act, and by practicing fraud the applicant along with other co-accused persons have collected money from the poor persons with dishonest intention and subsequently no benefits as per assurance and promise was given to them. Their money was also not returned back to them and accordingly, by such act, the offence of cheating and by using such money for themselves the offence of breach of trust was committed, thus, the petitioner does not deserve for extending benefit of bail. In further argument, he said that the petitioner is also not entitled for extending such benefit on the ground of parity as the case of the present petitioner is squarely distinguishable from the cases of other co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. In support of such contention, he said that initially the first information report was registered against the company, in which the petitioner was one of the Director, on 5/12/2011, and thereafter, during investigation, it was established that the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offences of practicing fraud and breach of trust contrary to existing other laws with various persons and the Police had made various efforts to trace her out to make her 4 MCRC 2255/2015 arrest, so also, to carry out her interrogation, but could not get success for near about four years, as such, the petitioner was remained absconded and on making various efforts could be arrested after more than three years. Thus, in view of such conduct of the petitioner according to which she remained absconded for considerable long period, she does not deserve for grant of bail at this stage. He further said that, in any case, in view of seriousness of the offences, if benefit of bail is extended to the petitioner, then it will not give healthy message to the society at large and she being influencing woman may prejudice the trial by winning over the witnesses. In support of such contention he also referred to the interrogatory statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard counsel, keeping in view their arguments, we have carefully gone through the petition as well as papers placed on record along with earlier rejection order of this Court so also the rejection order of the Sessions Court. From mere perusal of the papers of the charge sheet, it is apparent that the petitioner remained absconded for more than three years and thereby she has held up the investigating process and after making various efforts, she could be arrested. In view of such conduct of the petitioner, her case is distinguishable from the cases of other co-accused persons of the impugned crime who have been extended the benefit of bail. So ground of parity is not available to the petitioner.
7. Apart from the aforesaid, on perusal of the case diary and the challan papers, we have found prima facie evidence against her, according to which, she being Director of the alleged company was involved in committing the alleged offences of fraud and breach of trust and the other 5 MCRC 2255/2015 alleged offences with the various persons of the society whereby after taking their money in different instalments by giving them imaginary promise and assurances to give monetary and other benefits, the same was not extended to such beneficiaries. In such premises, with the active assistance of the petitioner, her company had defrauded with dishonest intention to various persons of the society.
8. In the case diary and papers of the charge sheet, we have found sufficient evidence showing the petitioner was Director of the alleged company in whose name (company), the alleged offence of fraud and breach of trust was committed with so many persons. The necessary documents connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence are also annexed with the charge sheet. In such circumstances, prima facie, it is apparent that the petitioner has not only committed such offences defined in the books of law, but she has also committed serious offences against the society at large. So in view of the aforesaid discussions, at this stage, we are not inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner till recording of depositions of some of the witnesses in trial.
9. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is extended liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on available admissible grounds under sub-section (6) of section 437 of Cr.P.C.
(U.C.Maheshwari) (D.K.Paliwal)
Judge Judge
ppg