Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajni Pujyawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2015
MCRC-18741-2015
(SMT. RAJNI PUJYAWAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
17-11-2015
Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri K. S. Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/ State.
Documents filed on behalf of the applicant with covering memo no.4709/2015 are taken on record, considering their relevancy vis-a-vis the bail application. Arguments heard.
Perused case diary and material on record. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as she apprehends her arrest in crime no.993/2015, registered at Police Station Seoni, district Seoni, against her and co-accused Dinesh for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution, complainant Vaijanti lodged a written report with the police on 9.10.2015 stating therein that the applicant has agreed to sell the land in question to her upon the total sale consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-. Thereafter, on 3.12.2013 the applicant has executed an agreement to sell in her favour after taking Rs.3,10,000/- from her as earnest money. Later, the applicant sold the land in question to co-accused Dinesh. Thus, the applicant has cheated her of Rs.3,10,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the complainant and the applicant is of civil nature and the complainant has sent her a legal notice dated 12.11.2014 stating therein among other things that if she does not executes a sale-deed of the land in question, then she will file a suit for specific performance of the contract against her. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is a house-wife and does not have any criminal background. It is lastly submitted by him that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs.3,10,000/- under protest at the time of furnishing bail- bonds before the concerned court. Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the fact that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs. 3,10,000/- under protest at the time of furnishing bail-bonds, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant with certain conditions. Allowing this application, she is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 4.12.2015 for interrogation and submission of documentary proofs of her permanent residential address and contact numbers, if any. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the case, in that event he will release her on bail immediately upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to his satisfaction. Further, she will abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer on the stipulated time, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled.
The applicant shall deposit Rs.3,10,000/- under protest in the concerned court at the time of furnishing bail-bonds. The court concerned shall not release the aforesaid amount during the trial of the case without due permission of this Court. However, at the time of conclusion of trial, it would have a judicial discretion as to disposal of the deposit money subject to reasoned order thereon and period of appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE