Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Gupta vs The State Of M.P. on 10 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-19470-2020
(RAVI GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
Gwalior, Date:-10/07/2020
Shri G.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for the complainant. Matter is heard through video conferencing.
I.A.No.6521/2020, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
This is second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicants.
The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.252/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.), for offence under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420 and 34 of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that they have not committed any offence in any manner. Earlier bail application of the present applicants was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 04/06/2020 in M.Cr.C. No.14289/2020. Thereafter, the changed circumstance is that the co-accused of this have already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2020 in M.Cr.C. No.13331/2020. Hence, seeks 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-19470-2020 (RAVI GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) parity as observed in the case of Sham Lal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 344 and in the cases of Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd. And others Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2005) 2 SCC (Cri) 1515 and in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 and in the case of V.P. Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. And others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 361 and in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684. It is further submitted that till date around Rs.50 lacs has already been repaid to the complainant and only transaction of Rs.14 lacs is remaining.The present applicant is a broker. He has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that one another case was registered on the same facts, wherein the present applicant as well as co-accused have already been granted benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19064/2020. As the present matter is based on parity and the main accused of this case already been granted benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, seeks parity and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Learned Dy. Advocate General as well as counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions and have submitted that earlier bail application of the present applicants was 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-19470-2020 (RAVI GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF M.P.) rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 04/06/2020, whereas the bail application of Kamta Prasad was already decided prior to earlier rejection of the bail application of present applicants. Therefore, there is no changed circumstance under which this bail application could be considred. The bail granted in another crime number may not be the factor to consider the bail in the present case. Hence, prays to reject the bail application of the applicant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case- diary.
It is apparent from the record that earlier bail application of the present applicants was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 04/06/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.14289/2020 and this is second repeat bail application. At the time of rejection of earlier bail application all the facts were considered and the bail application was rejected on merits. Therefore, there is no changed circumstance under which this repeat bail application could be considered.
Accordingly, this 2nd bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
vpn Judge
VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI
2020.07.10 17:31:46
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
+05'30'