Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhudayal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.6540/2015
07.08.2015
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Govt. Advocate for the
non-applicant/State.
Shri Dilip Singh Pawar, learned Counsel for the
complainant.
Heard with the aid of the case-diary.
ORDER
This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.338/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, District Ratlam.
As per the prosecution case, on 07.10.2009, complainant Manoj has purchased a second hand four wheeler MP37-T-0185 from Anand Shah for a consideration of Rs.2,97,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand) and Anand Shah has handed over the vehicle to Shri Manoj Sharma. In the RTO the vehicle was transferred in the name of Manoj Sharma. On 05.11.2009, applicant Shambhudayal, Anand Shah and Asif had taken the vehicle in their possession, which was parked in front of Guna Wine Shop and subsequently on 09.12.2009 they have sold the vehicle to Renuka Shrivastava without the consent of complainant Manoj Sharma. Manoj Sharma has made a written complaint in the Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam on 10.06.2015, then the aforesaid case is registered against the applicant.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Indore and he is a businessman. He has no criminal antecedents. As per the prosecution case, alleged incident has taken place in November, 2009 whereas false report has been lodged on 10.06.2015. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, he be granted anticipatory bail.
Learned Govt. Advocate for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.
Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that the applicant is an influential person and his custodial interrogation is necessary and vehicle has also to be recovered, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, nature of the offence and the complaint has been made after lapse of more than 5 years. In such circumstances the applicant has made out a case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for his appearance in investigation as and when directed and required. Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicant during trial with the condition that when the final report shall be filed, the applicant would furnish fresh bail bond as per this order. Applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on them.
It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE ns