Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhlakh Shaikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2019
Author: Vandana Kasrekar
Bench: Vandana Kasrekar
M.Cr.C. No.40121/2019 1
(Akhlakh Shaikh S/o Shaikh Mohammad Iqbal vs. State of M.P.)
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Indore : 15/10/2019 :-
Shri Arvind S. Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the Complainant.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for relaxing the condition imposed on the petitioner by the learned V ASJ, Dhar while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 05/09/2019.
2. The petitioner is facing prosecution for committing offence under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 of IPC, therefore, he filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail. The said application was allowed by V ASJ, Dhar, however while granting bail extremely strenuous condition for depositing an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has been imposed with the Remand Court vide order dated 05/09/2019. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and it amounts to denial of bail, as the same is excessively onerous. He further submits that while granting bail, the Court has wrongly imposed such strenuous condition, which could not be fulfilled by the petitioner, hence in such circumstances, he prays that petition may be allowed and the condition imposed M.Cr.C. No.40121/2019 2 (Akhlakh Shaikh S/o Shaikh Mohammad Iqbal vs. State of M.P.) by the trial Court be deleted from the order passed by the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in case of Dilipkumar vs. State of Maharashtra 2017 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1143 as well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshab Narayan Banerjee and another vs. State of Bihar AIR 1985 SC 1666.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supports the condition imposed in the order by the trial Court submitting that in the present case the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner and when the complainant has asked for returning of the said amount, the petitioner has given three cheques to the complainant, which has been returned un-paid, thus by this way, the complainant could not receive the said amount, therefore, on this allegation, the Court below has imposed such condition of depositing the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Remand Court. The said condition is just and proper, which requires no interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. It reveals that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from the complainant and after receiving the said amount, the petitioner has not given the possession of said land to the complainant. It was found that the petitioner is not owner of the said disputed land, therefore, to compensate the complainant, the learned Court below has imposed the condition of depositing Rs.15,00,000/-
M.Cr.C. No.40121/2019 3(Akhlakh Shaikh S/o Shaikh Mohammad Iqbal vs. State of M.P.) before the Remand Court.
7. While granting bail, it is totally discretionary relief, to be exercised by the Court. While granting bail, the Court can impose any of the condition, which deems fit by the Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, in the present case, I do not find it appropriate/proper to relax the condition, so imposed by the trial Court vide order dated 05/09/2019, hence, present petition sans merit, accordingly stands dismissed.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Aiyer* Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 2019.10.18 17:36:55 +05'30'