Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2020

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

MCRC 53125/2019               1

         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    MCRC No. 53125/2019
                  (Jitendra vs. State of MP)
Indore: Dated:- 23/01/2020:-
      Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
      Shri Ajay Bagadia and Shri Vishal Borade, learned
counsels for the Objectors.
      Shri Sandeep Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
      Heard with the aid of case diary.
                         ORDER

1. This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.158/17 registered at Police Station - Sarafa, District-Indore under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner in connivance with the other co-accused persons fabricated false identity card, using that identity card, he obtained a voter I.D. card, using this I.D., he obtained 2 pan cards and using all these documents, he opened bank account in Jawahar Marg Branch of Andhra Bank and some other banks. He purchased 2 vehicles and by using fake voter I.D. and pan card, he applied and obtained 2 death certificates of Mr. Subash Borade with 2 different father names. He withdrew maturity amount of fixed deposits of Subash and thus has committed crime.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant Dilip and Vishal are his uncle (chacha)/cousin and one Subash Holkar was his uncle (mama). Father of Subash Holkar was Datatray and his grandfather was Govind Rao Holkar. Subash Holkar used to mention his father's name, somewhere alone and some other places with his grandfather's name and somewhere used to mention their names (father's and grandfather's names) in abbreviation. Thus sometime, he was using Subash Holkar S/o Datatray Holkar, sometime Subash Holkar S/o Govind Rao Datatray Holkar and sometime Subash Holkar S/o G.D. Holkar. Subash died intestate on 08/10/2013. H was treating the petitioner as his son. During his lifetime, he nominated him in his bank and other official documents. After his death, the petitioner applied for withdrawal of fixed deposit of Subash Holkar and mentioned his father's name as Datatray Holkar, along with a death certificate obtained in the same name, but in the bank, there was some difference in the name of father's, therefore, bank asked them to get it corrected in the death certificate, therefore, he applied for another death certificate mentioning the father's name as suggested by the bank. Substantially, there was no difference in Subash Holkar S/o Datatray Holkar or Subash Holkar S/o Govind Rao Datatray Holkar or Subash Holkar S/o G.D. Holkar, as they are one and the same person, therefore, no forgery is committed by him. By submitting the application, he only received Rs.2107.60/- in his bank account from the FDR of MCRC 53125/2019 3 Subash Holkar. Real brother of deceased Subash Holkar - Hemant and Devdas have never disputed all these facts and have never opposed the action of the petitioner. There is serious family dispute regarding ancestral property between the petitioner and the complainant. Various civil matters are also pending between them. No forgery has been committed by him. The complainant has created a confusion only to gain advantage in the property dispute. He is in jail since 24/04/2019, charge-sheet has already been filed, no custodial interrogation or any recovery is required from him and the trial is likely to take time, therefore, he be granted bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards statement of real brother of Subash Holkar, Captain Santosh S/o Datatray Holkar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police in Crime No.158/17 registered at Police Station - Sarafa, District-Indore. In his statement, Captain Santosh S/o Datatray Holkar has clearly stated that name of his father was 'Datatray Holkar' and name of grandfather was 'Govind Rao'. Father used to use the name of his father with his name, therefore, he also adopted the same tradition and started using name of his father along with name of grandfather. His father was D.S.P. in police department. He used to write his name on the name plate as D.G. Holkar (Datatray Govind Rao Holkar), therefore, they also started writing their father's name as G.D. Holkar or Datatray Govind Rao Holkar and learned counsel submits that this makes the everything clear that the petitioner has never MCRC 53125/2019 4 misguided any authority or has never fabricated any document with any malafide intention.

5. The complainant has seriously objected the bail, stating that on different occasion, the petitioner has changed father's name of deceased Subash as well as his residential address and has obtained several I.D. cards, certificates and has used them to got pan cards, voter I.D. card access to bank accounts etc. He has long criminal records. 10 other criminal cases bearing crime No.236/18 under Sections 177, 34, 420 of IPC, 158/17 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120- B of IPC, 108/17 under Sections 427, 336, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, 35418/16 under Sections 12 r/w S.18, 20 & 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 263/16 under Section 279 of IPC, 210/12 under Sections 420, 465, 182, 200, 34 and 467, 177, 181, 193, 120-B of IPC, 205/12 under Sections 420, 182, 200 of IPC, 321/12 under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC, 676/2009 under Sections 323, 504 of IPC, 96/2008 under Sections 498, 323, 506 of IPC have been registered against him, therefore, he be not granted bail.

6. However, the facts that Subash was son of Datatray Holkar and grandson of Govind Holkar and that Subash has nominated him in the bank accounts etc. have not been controverted by the complainant.

7. In reply it is submitted that all the criminal cases have been registered at the instigation of the complainant, who is a practicing lawyer and his family member.

8. After carefully going through the numerous documents filed by both the parties, looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner and also keeping in view the relations and crux of the dispute between the parties, coupled with the period of custody and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.

9. It is directed that the petitioner Jitendra S/o late Shri Kirtichand Borade be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;

(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;

(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activity is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.

(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soumya Soumya Ranjan Dalai DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, Ranjan st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84322 bb5797cf28ee60671538b73 Dalai 7cf52962d84d7b527897e53a c, cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2020.01.27 13:45:30 +05'30'