Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shabbir Hussain Kaanchwala Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2016
MCRC-3272-2016
(SHABBIR HUSSAIN KAANCHWALA THROUGH SMT. YASMEEN KAANCHWALA Vs THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH)
25-04-2016
Shri A.M.Mathur, learned Sr.counsel with Mr.Abhinav
Dhanodkar, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Aniket Naik, learned Dy.G.A. for non-applicant/State.
Mr. Rahul Laad, learned counsel for the complainant.
ORDER
This is first application under 438 of Cr.P.C.. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.44/16 registered at P.S. Pandharinath, Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
2. As per prosecution case, complainant Firoz Poonawala has lodged a written complaint alleging that applicant Shabbir Hussain Kanchwala has presented forged marksheet of Mumbai University at the time of interview for the post of Accountant in Alsafa Engineering and Plastic Works held on 15.5.1996. It is further alleged that applicant was appointed as Accountant, he worked till June 2013 in the company. On 30.6.2013 suddenly the applicant left Dubai and came back to India. When the account of the company was checked it was found that applicant has misappropriated huge amount of the company. When applicant was contacted, it was admitted by him that he has misappropriated the money and committed breach of trust and he is ready to refund the money and he also executed the agreement on 2.7.2013 and 18.7.2013. On the basis of audit report it was found that applicant has misappropriated Rs.7,56,50,000/- and has transferred the same in his account. On the basis of the report complaint was lodged at Dubai, on the basis of which case has been registered against the applicant and look out notice has been issued, thereafter the Director of the company contacted the applicant to refund the money but he has not refunded the amount and also threatened to kill the complainant. Report was lodged, on which crime No.427/15 was registered which is pending. It is further alleged that applicant has got the employment on the basis of forged marksheet and has isappropriated Crores of Rupees, hence he has committed cheating and breach of trust.
3. Learned Sr.counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated. The report has been lodged after 19 years. Learned counsel submits that agreement has been executed wherein the complainant has not made any allegation against the applicant that he has submitted forged marksheets of Bombay University. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the agreement dated 2.7.2013 and 18.7.2013, complainant has admitted that he is fully satisfied with the services rendered by the applicant and also the applicant has done his job with complete devotion and honesty. In the agreement dated 18.7.2013 the complainant has admitted that he has received post dated cheques and also agreed not to take any further action and also has withdrawn the complaint No.343119 dated 2.7.2013 in Dubai. It is further submitted that applicant is a income tax payee and possess assets about 20 Crores, there is no likelihood of his absconsion, hence prayed for anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Dy.G.A.. appearing for non-applicant/State as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
5. Perused the case diary. Considering the allegation against the applicant as well as copies of the agreement executed in between the complainant and the applicant coupled with the fact there is no likelihood of absconsion of the applicant, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest applicant be released on bail for the period of thirty days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to abiding the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
6. Applicant may apply for regular bail within the aforesaid period of thirty days before the competent court.
M.Cr.C. is accordingly disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE