Hemendra Gehlot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 March, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hemendra Gehlot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 March, 2022

Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh

                                     1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                        ON THE 8 th OF MARCH, 2022
                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 55104 of 2021

        Between:-
        HEMENDRA GEHLOT
        S/O MOHANLAL GEHLOT
        AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
        OCCUPATION: SERVICE
        251, NANDPURI V, WARD NO. 32
        TEH. SANGANER
        DIST. JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
        AT PRESENT KOTA, RAJASTHAN

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI S. K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

        AND

        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
        THRU. P.S. CITY KOTWALI
        DIST. MANDSAUR (MP)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, G.A.)
      This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
                                     ORDER

With the consent, heard finally.

Perused the case diary.

This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 15.10.2021 in connection with Crime No.551/2019 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mandsaur (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of IPC read with Section 6(1) of M. P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.

Prosecution story, in brief is that co-accused Rashid Nasim being C.M.D. of M/s Shine Janex Pvt. Ltd. Co. entered into a conspiracy with the applicant Hemendra Gehlot and his colleague Kuldeep Singh Rana and made them founder 2 member of the aforesaid company. Thereafter, applicant alongwith co-accused persons induced and instigated the complainant Ishwar Sharma, Rajkumar Singh, Narendra Dhanotiya, Raees Ahmad Khan and 20 other people to purchase cryptocurrency token of the aforesaid company @ Rs.5.00 per token by making their online IDs saying that aforesaid company is doing the business of real estate and cryptocurrency and will give handsome return, thereby took an amount of Rs.14.20 lacs from them.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant himself has been victimized by co-accused Rashid Nasim who induced the applicant and co- accused Kuldeep Singh Rana saying that if they will work for the company, they will get handsome commission, on the basis of which, applicant himself invested an amount of Rs.1.00 lac in the aforesaid company. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant and other investors invested money directly into the account of aforesaid company through online transaction. Applicant had not received any amount from the complainant or any of the investors. Co-accused Rashid Nasim, who is the main accused in the case has been absconding. Other co-accused Kuldeep Singh Rana is also absconding. Investigation with regard to the applicant has been completed. Applicant is in custody since 15.10.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed. Applicant's custodial interrogation is no more required in the matter. Trial will take time to conclude and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant - State has opposed the application and submits that applicant alongwith other co-accused person took huge amount of Rs.14.20 lacs from the complainant and other investors saying that they will get handsome return. Offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature and therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, material produced on record against the applicant, period of custody of the applicant and the fact that the whole amount alleged to be taken by the applicant alongwith co-accused persons were invested/deposited directly into the account of the company so also considering other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits 3 of the case, the application is allowed.

It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19), the concerned Jail Authority is directed to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.

This application is allowed and stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE gp GEETA Digitally signed by GEETA PRAMOD DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=1dc3d93a178bbacd0e9485f9f6e99335499bddb32501 850a4984b5b63f6d7a38, PRAMOD pseudonym=12F09B7BC77D4D3D96B764E8FA34B6FE3874D43 4, serialNumber=41554F8E701AEEB833278B4FDD900CBED72CCF 299EA61E33BBE6175289BA0390, cn=GEETA PRAMOD Date: 2022.03.10 13:05:16 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court