Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MP BEHCN AT INDORE
MCRC No.50319/2018
Ankit Shrivastava vs. The State of M.P.
Indore: Dated:-02.01.2019
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
1. This is 2nd repeat bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.298/2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station-MIG, District-Indore.
2. First bail application was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2018 passed in MCRC No.26389/2018.
3. Facts in short of the prosecution case are that Juhi Tiwari-daughter of complainant Maya Tiwari, purchased 2028.6 square feet space at first floor in a condominium to be developed by Balaji Febtech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on land bearing Survey No.388/2/1, survey No.388/2/2 and survey No.388/2/3 in patwari halka No.16, Indore @ Rs.3500/- per square meter for total consideration of Rs.71 lacs. A sale deed was executed by authorised signatory of Balaji Febtech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - Ankit Shrivastava and Aman Sahal. As per the terms and condition, the first party - seller has to develop the building and handover the possession within two years six months, in case of failure, the same shall be liable to refund consideration amount with interest @ 1.5% per month. The developer did not develop and handover the possession of the purchased area of the proposed building and also did not refund the money as settled between the parties, therefore, mother of the purchaser Maya Tiwari filed HIGH COURT OF MP BEHCN AT INDORE a report with the police. On the basis of which police registered a case and investigated the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner again argued the petition on the similar grounds which have earlier been discarded by this Court.
5. Parity with the co-accused Ritesh Singh, who has been granted bail vide order dated 27.06.2018 passed in MCRC No.21452/2018 is also claimed, but on the earlier occasion, bail of the petitioner was dismissed after two months of bail granted to the Ritesh. Therefore, again this ground can not be raised. However, looking to the fact that ground of parity is not mentioned in the earlier order dated 20.08.2018, I have considered this ground and found that Ritesh was only employee of the company and only acted at the behest of his owners while, the petitioner is Director of the company and direct allegation have been made against him to defraud the complainant. Therefore, his case is different from the case of Ritesh.
6. During argument, learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated the order dated 17.12.2018 passed in MCRC No.50288/2018 in which bail was granted to one Kiren Deshmukh and claimed parity with him also, but no allegation have been made in the complaint or in the police statement against Kiran Deshmukh. There is no evidence on record that he ever mislead or misrepresented the complainant or received any amout or executed the alleged agreement/sale deed or ever withdrew the amount deposited by the complainant from account of the company. Therefore, the case of the present petitioner is not identical to the case of Kiren Deshmukh.
HIGH COURT OF MP BEHCN AT INDORE
7. Considering the nature of allegations, nature of offence and evidence collected during investigation, I do not find any substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case to deviate from earlier view taken by this Court. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge amit Digitally signed by Amit Kumar Date: 2019.01.05 17:47:52 +05'30'