Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Semil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2014
1 M. Cr. C. No. 9891/2014
[Mahesh Semil Vs. State of MP]
17/11/2014
Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for applicant- Mahesh Semil.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for non-applicant- State. Shri RK Upadhyay, Advocate for complainant. They are heard.
Perused the Case Diary.
This is the first application under Section 438 of CrPC filed on behalf of applicant-Mahesh Semil for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.368/2014, registered at Police Station: Station Road, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 468 and 471 of IPC.
As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 12th September, 2014 when FIR was lodged by complainant Laxman Singh to the effect that he has purchased one godown on 06th December,2012 by registered sale deed from Vinod Kumar Bansal and possession was also taken by him. Thereafter, the godown was illegally occupied by present applicant-Mahesh Semil and godown was locked by him. After being made search, it was found by Laxman Singh that the godown was illegally possessed by applicant Mahesh Semil.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made on the ground that in fact present applicant-Mahesh Semil was and is the tenant and in the aforesaid disputed godown, he has occupied the godown since 1991 on the basis of rent note and property was rented out to him by Vinod Kumar Bansal. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma, that a 2 M. Cr. C. No. 9891/2014 false report was made against the applicant. The applicant has filed a civil suit against complainant Laxman Singh, owner of the godown Vinod Kumar Bansal and other defendants for declaration and injunction. In that civil suit, the competent Court has passed an order on injunction application and it was directed on 15th October, 2014 to maintain status quo. Therefore, looking to the false implication, applicant is entitled to enlarge on anticipatory bail.
Prayer was opposed by learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for complainant on the ground that all the documents, including rent note were prepared falsely just to prove the legal possession over godown but in fact although the documents prepared by the applicant are false and fabricated, it is submitted by the prosecution that when rent note was examined it was opined by handwriting expert Mr. Anil Agrawal that rent note executed in favour of the applicant dated 20th January, 2006 was forged and the same was not signed by Mr.Vinod Kumar Bansal. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the status quo order passed by the competent Court and the fact that civil litigation is going on between the parties and apart from that, applicant is permanent resident of Amhah Road, District Morena and there is no possibility of his absconsion, application is hereby allowed. It is directed that applicant shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer on or before 29th November, 2014 and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty 3 M. Cr. C. No. 9891/2014 thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer, he shall be released on bail. The applicant shall also abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of CrPC.
M. Cr. C. stands disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. D. Rathi) Judge MKB