Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Dahiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2016
MCRC-5315-2016
(RAJENDRA KUMAR DAHIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-05-2016
Shri P.R. Bhave, learned senior counsel with Shri Bhanu Yadav, for
the applicant.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State
with case diary.
Shri K.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the objector/complainant. They are heard.
This is a repeat application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.470/2015 registered at Police Station Churhat, District Sidhi for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of IPC. Shri Bhave, learned senior counsel submitted that the FIR lodged by the complainant is politically motivated and the applicant has not defalcated public money. He also invited attention to the report of the SDOP, Churhat, District Sidhi who after due enquiry has given clean chit to the applicant. He, therefore, submits that the application for anticipatory bail may be allowed.
Application for anticipatory bail is opposed by Shri Lakhera, learned panel lawyer for the State and Shri Bagel, learned counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that by order dated 05.02.2016,, this Court had rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail after considering the report of the SDOP, Churhat, District Sidhi. It is also pointed out that the report of the SDOP, Churhat was in relation to the persons who are not named in the FIR. The allegation against the applicant is that he along with co- accused has defalcated public money (Manrega) by making false entries in the muster roll in respect of the persons named in the FIR who are already in government job. It is also pointed out by Shri Baghel that he has submitted copy of the online muster roll to show that false muster roll was prepared for the purposes of defalcation of money.
After having heard rival submissions and considering the evidence which have been placed on record, I find no reason to take a different view of the matter after having rejected the application for anticipatory bail on 05.02.2016. The present application therefore, stands rejected and closed.
(S.K. SETH) JUDGE