Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaswant Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2016
MCRC-22330-2015
(JASWANT RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
13-01-2016
Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri D.K. Paroha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /State.
Heard on admission. Admit.
With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the case is heard finally. Perused the Case diary.
This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. His earlier applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16816/2015.
The applicant is in custody since 15.09.2015 in connection with Crime No.814/2014 registered at Police Station Sarni, District Betul (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that one of complainant Ramadhar has given notice Annexure A/3 for payment of Rs.2,60,000/- as per provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act, therefore, no case is made out under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of IPC against the applicant. Challan has been filed and the present applicant is in custody since 15.09.2015 and trial would take considerable time in its final disposal, therefore, he may be released on bail. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed this second bail application on the ground that not only complainant Ramadhar is cheated by the applicant, but other complainants namely Baliram, Pandri and Dhanraj and others also were cheated on account of false promise to appoint them in Government service, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
This is second repeat bail application of the applicant, his earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2015. Ever since then, there is no change in the circumstances to take a different view. Still with a view to satisfy the judicial mind, once again I have gone through all the documents filed by the applicant and also the case diary. After considering the same, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant at this stage.
Hence, this second repeat bail application being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE