Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dilip Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2017

                    M.Cr.C. No.9186 of 2017
09/10/2017
      Shri   C.   L.   Yadav,   learned   Senior   Counsel   with   Shri
Shyam Singh Thakur, learned Counsel for the applicant--
Dilip Singh S/o Late Shri Samandersingh.
      Shri   K.   K.   Tiwari,   learned   Public   Prosecutor   for   the
non­applicant/State.
      Shri Anil Ojha, learned Counsel for the objector.
      Heard. Perused the case diary.
2.    This is 2nd/repeat application for grant of bail filed by
applicant   -   Dilip   Singh,   who   is   implicated   in   Crime
No.128/2015,   registered   at   police   station   -   Kishanganj,
Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420467,
468471 / 34, IPC. He is in custody since 18.1.2017.
3.    On 9.8.2004, co­accused Sonpal Verma, purchased an
area of 1.128 hectares of village Pigdambar, Tehsil Mhow,
District - Indore, from golden forest India Ltd. On 9.4.2010,
co - accused Sonpal Verma, has executed power of attorney
in favour of applicant - Dilip Singh Goyal, in respect of his
land   situated   at   Patwari   Halka   No.1,   village   Pigdamber
Tehsil   Mhow,   Distt.   Indore.   On   the   basis   of   power   of
attorney, applicant Dilip Singh and Sonpal Verma, shown
themselves   as   owner   of   the   said   land   and   induced   the
objector   company   M/s.   Vinayak   Autolink   Pvt.   Ltd,   to
purchase the said land. The accused persons also prepared
false   and   fabricated   document   such   as   Bhu­Adhikar   Rin
Pustika No.35095 of the said land and thereafter executed
 an   agreement   dated   15.3.2013   to   sale   with   the   present
applicant   attorney   holder   and   objector   has   put   a   huge
amount   of   Rs.3,04,00,000/­.   After   payment   of
Rs.3,04,00,000/­ applicant failed to execute the sale deed
of   the   land   in   question.   Thereafter,   the   objector   has
demanded   the   refund   of  their   amount,   but  till   today  the
amount has not been paid.
4.    A suit for recovery has been filed for recovery of Rs.11
crore on 3.7.2014 by the objector against the applicant and
co­accused Sonpal Verma.
5.    For refunding the part amount of the amount received
by the accused persons they have issued cheques of Rs.25
lacs and 2.5 lacs respectively, but both the cheques were
returned   un­paid   on   3.2.2015   and   3.3.2015,   respectively
and,   therefore,   two   separate   criminal   complaints   under
Section   138   of   N.I.   Act   have   been   filed   by   the   objector
against the applicant.
6.    As per case diary, the allegation against the applicant
that he with the help of co­accused persons has conspired
to   design   the   objector   company   and   are   successful   in
getting the huge amount in crores. After obtaining the huge
amount   by   the   objector   company,   the   applicant   and   his
family   members   purchased   the   property   in   the   name   of
M/s.  Shakti Cold  Storage  and  used  the  same  amount  for
their personal gains.
7.    Learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   applicant   has
submitted   that   first   application   was   dismissed   on   the
 ground   that   no   charge­sheet   was   filed   and   the   applicant
was arrested only on 18.1.2017 whereas the criminal case
was registered in the year 2015. He further submitted that
while   rejecting   the   first   applicant   liberty   was   granted   to
repeat   the   same   after   three   months.   At   present   the
applicant   is   in  custody   for   a  period   about   9   months   and
charge­sheet   is   also   filed.   He   submitted   that   in   identical
matter, bail application has been allowed by this Court and
prays for grant of bail.
8.      Learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Anil Ojha, learned
Counsel for the objector opposed the prayer and submitted
that   applicant   be   directed   to   deposit   the   amount   as   the
huge   amount   of   Rs.3.4   crores   is   involved   in   the   present
case.
9.      In reply, Shri C. L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel has
submitted that suit for recovery is pending since, 2014 and,
therefore,  at this stage  it would  not be proper for giving
direction to the applicant for depositing the amount.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case so also the nature of allegation made against the
present   applicant,  without   expressing   any   opinion   on   the
merits of the case, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9186/2017
is allowed. It is directed that the applicant--Dilip Singh  shall
be released on bail  subject to  his depositing Rs.5,00,000/­
(Five Lakhs) in cash in the trial  Court   and   upon   his
furnishing   personal   bond   in  the sum  of  Rs.2,00,000/­
(Two Lakhs) with two local sureties each in the like amount
       to   the   satisfaction   of   the   concerned   JMFC/CJM   for   his
      appearance before him or trial Court on all dates of hearing as
      may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.
      11.   This order will remain operative subject to compliance of
      the following conditions: ­
                      1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The   applicant   will   cooperate   in   the investigation / trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

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

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

6. The applicant will mark his presence at   Police   Station--Kishanganj,   District--Indore once in every month till the trial is completed. 

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

C. c. as per rules.

      (P. K. Jaiswal)       Judge     pp/