Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajkumar Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2021

Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

                                                                         1                              CRA-5542-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                          CRA-5542-2021
                                                 (RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 27-10-2021
                                             Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Counsel with Shri Ambar Mishra, Advocate for

                                       the appellant.
                                             Shri Alok Gupta, PL for the respondent No.1/State.

None for the respondent/complainant despite compliance of provision o f Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the respondent No.1.

Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This repeat criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 31/8/2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katni in SC/ATR no.18/2020; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by appellant Rajkumar Agrawal under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.01/2019 registered at P.S. AJAK, District Katni (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

In total this second criminal appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 28/6/2021 passed in Cr.A.No.3569/2021.

As per the prosecution case, on 04/03/2019 Manjo Bai, Chandravati, Usha Raidas, Mithla, Rukmani, Soni Bai, Mithla w/o Santosh Raidas all of who m were residents of Village-Kharkhari, Police Station-Kuthla, District- Katni lodged the written report at Police Station A.J.K. Katni averring that co- accused Gudda @ Ram kumar Yadav and Daduram Chaudhary approached them and on the assurance to get loan sanctioned to them from Bank under Government Scheme took their I.D. and papers of their land. Thereafter, they got loan sanctioned in the name of complainants by taking their forged Signature Not Verified SAN signatures. However, said loan amount was not paid to complainants.

2 CRA-5542-2021 Appellant Rajkumar Agrawal, Manager of Central Madhya Pradesh Rural Bank, Branch Devri Tola got the cheques of Margin Money worth Rs.30,00,000/- from the government and misappropriated that amount in connivance with co-accused persons namely Suresh Rajak, Jeewan Burman and Subham Burman. It is further alleged that Rs.2,19,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- & Rs.1,80,000/- were deposited in the accounts of co-accused persons namely Suresh, Jeevan and Subham respectively from the amount of Margin Money which they withdraw thereafter and Rs.12,40,000/- was transferred in the account of co-accused Nand Kumar. Thus, the appellant in connivance with co-accused persons namely Suresh, Jeevan, Subham and Nand Kumar misappropriated the government money. Police arrested the appellant on 28/5/2021. On that, appellant filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 31/8/2021. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no direct evidence on record to show that the appellant withdrew any amount or the appellant prepared any forged documents. Even then, the appellant is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lac from the alleged amount under protest. Other co- accused persons namely Suresh, Jeevan and Subham have been released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 2/12/2019 passed in Cr.A.No.8428/2019. So, the appellant is entitled to get bail on the basis of parity also. The appellant has been in custody since 28/5/2021. Charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the case of the appellant is not similar to the case of co-accused Suresh Rajak, Jeevan Burman and Subham Burman, who have been earlier granted Signature Not Verified SAN anticipatory bail. The allegation against co-accused Suresh Rajak, Jeevan Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.10.27 17:01:11 IST 3 CRA-5542-2021 Burman and Subham Burman are that some amount was transferred in the account of co-accused Suresh Rajak, Jeevan Burman and Subham Burman from the alleged amount. The bail was granted to co-accused Suresh Rajak, Jeevan Burman and Subham Barman on depositing that amount. There is no allegation against them that they themselves committed any fraud. It is alleged that the appellant himself wrongly deposited the amount of Rs.2,19,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- & Rs.1,80,000/- in the accounts of co-accused persons namely Suresh, Jeevan and Subham respectively from the amount of Margin Money which they withdraw thereafter and Rs.12,40,000/- was transferred in the account of co-accused Nand Kumar and embezzled that amount, so the appellant is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.

Though, earlier appeal of the appellant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 28/6/2021 passed in Cr.A.No.3569/2021. The appellant is in custody since 28/5/2021, the charge sheet has been filed and he is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under protest from the alleged amount and the conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed and appellant is directed to be released on b ail subject to depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in fix deposit in any nationalized bank and on depositing receipt of that F.D.before the concerning Court and on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The appellant will cooperate in the trial;

3.The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.10.27 17:01:11 IST 4 CRA-5542-2021 or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,as the case may be;

4.The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

The amount so deposited by the appellant in fix deposit, shall be subject to final outcome of the case.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-