Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Satnam Singh Randhawa vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2020

Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey

                                                                            1                      MCRC-16655-2020
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         MCRC-16655-2020
                                                     (SATNAM SINGH RANDHAWA Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 19-10-2020
                                             Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                             Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Siddharth Datt,
                                       learned counsel for the applicant.
                                             Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.

Case dairy perused and argument heard.

This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.8/2016 registered at Police Station STF, Distt. Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978.

Earlier application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 7/1/2019 passed in MCrC No.28215/2017.

As per prosecution case, on the complaint of Rambhushan Raghuwanshi, police registered Crime No. 8/2016 at Police Station STF, Distt. Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406,409 and 120-B of the IPC , Section 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,2000, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978 against the applicant and other co-accused. The general allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons are that the applicant, who was Director of the GN gold, GN Dairies and G.N.D. India limited company, sold the financial products of the companies to the general public through their agents assuring them of high returns upon their investments after maturity periods. However, he did not pay the money after Signature Not Verified SAN the maturity periods. On the other hand, they closed down the office of the Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.10.20 18:10:15 IST 2 MCRC-16655-2020 company, fled away and misappropriated the money of innocent people.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. He further submitted that the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant only for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 & 6 of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000. The maximum sentence prescribed in these offences is up to 7 years. He further submitted that in this case, the applicant was arrested on 7/10/2016 and till today, the applicant is in custody and trial has not concluded yet. He has undergone detention for a period which is more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences for which he has been charged. So, looking at the provisions of Section 436(A) of the CrPC, the applicant is entitled to get bail, therefore, he be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant filed this application under Section 439 of the CrPC not under Section 436(A) of CrPC. The applicant did not even file any application before the trial Court under Section 436(A) of CrPC and directly raised this ground before this Court which is not tenable directly before this Court. Earlier bail application of applicant was dismissed on merits, thereafter, there has been no change in circumstances. He further submitted that the applicant played fraud upon innocent investors. Sufficient evidence is available on record to connect the applicant with the offence in question so he may not be released on bail.

It appears from the record that the applicant filed this application under Section 439 of CrPC not under Section 436(A) of CrPC and in that application, he has also taken the ground that he has undergone detention for a period which is more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences for which he has been charged. So, looking to the provisions of Section 436(A) of the CrPC, the applicant is entitled to get bail.

However, the applicant did not file any application under Section 436(A) of Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.10.20 18:10:15 IST 3 MCRC-16655-2020 the CrPC before the trial Court and directly took that ground before this Court in the application filed by him under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

“Provisions of 436A of code of criminal Procedure Code reads as thus:-

[436A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.â€"Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.â€"In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.] From bare perusal of the provisions of Section 436(A) of the code of Criminal Procedure, it is apparent that it is the discretion of the trial Court to release or not the applicant on bail on the ground that applicant underwent detention for a period which is more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences for which he has been charged. So, it is appropriate for the applicant that he first file an application before the trial Court under Section 436(A) of the CrPC, thereafter, if occasion so arises, he may approach this Court by filing appropriate application accompanied by the first order of the Sessions Court and also mentioning all the relevant Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.10.20 18:10:15 IST

4 MCRC-16655-2020 facts.

As regard to the applicant’s bail application under Section 439 of CrPC is concerned, earlier bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 7/1/2019 passed in MCrC no.28215/2017. Thereafter, there is no change in the circumstances, except the period of detention. But, only on that ground, the applicant is not entitled to get bail. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence. Apex court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "it is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But, without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.

So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the learned counsel of the State, the enormity of the fraud committed by the applicant and the other co-accused persons upon the complainant and the other innocent investors and the fact that the other offences are also registered against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant Hence, the bail application is dismissed.

Though, the applicant is free to file an application under Section 436(A) of CrPC before trial Court, which is to be considered by the trial Court on its own merits without taking note of the order passed by this Court in this case and thereafter, if occasion so arises, applicant is free to approach this Court by filing appropriate application.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.10.20 18:10:15 IST 5 MCRC-16655-2020 m/-