Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupendra Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2017
M.Cr.C. No.14895/2016
1
(Rupendra Singh Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P.)
01.03.2017
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Case dairy is available.
By order dated 15.02.2017, this Court had directed the State counsel to verify that whether any proceedings under Sections 82, 83 and 84 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant or not.
It is fairly conceded by the State counsel that no proceedings under Sections 82, 83 and 84 of Cr.P.C. have been initiated and even the investigation has not been completed and is still pending.
It is submitted by the State counsel that the applicant has not been declared absconder.
Under these circumstances, the case is heard on merits.
This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.75/2013 registered by Police Station-City Kotwali, District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471-A of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he is a shareholder of AKS Agro India Limited Company. However, there is no allegation against the applicant that he had ever instigated anybody to deposit the amount with the company. From the case diary, it appears that the complainant Jagdesh Narayan Sharma has stated that his M.Cr.C. No.14895/2016 2 neighbor Sumant Sharma has deposited the amount with the company and therefore, it is Sumant Sharma who took him to the company where co-accused Anup Kumar Sharma was sitting in the office of the Company. He projected himself as Director of the company. As the complainant was persuaded by Anup Kumar Sharma as well as Sumant Sharma therefore, the complainant deposited certain amount which was not returned by the company. From the case diary, it appears that except an allegation that the applicant is also a shareholder in the company, there is no allegation that he was actively involved in persuading the innocent persons to deposit their hard earned money in the company.
It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the shareholder of a company cannot be equated with the person who is actively responsible for day to day business of the company.
The application is opposed by the State counsel on the ground that an innocent person who got certain amount after his retirement has been cheated by persuading to deposit the amount and thereafter company left.
Considering the facts that the matter is pending since 2013 and the police did not take any steps to apprehend the applicant coupled with the fact that there is no allegation against him for persuading the depositors to deposit their amount with the company, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
M.Cr.C. No.14895/2016 3It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant Rupendra Singh Bhadoriya shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigating Officer).
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14 th March, 2017 and he shall cooperate with the investigation. In case, he fails to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 14 th March, 2017, then this order will loose its effect.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge Sha