Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 234 (MP)

Bipin Garg v. State of M. P.

2014-02-25

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A.No.444/14, an application filed under section 301(2) of CrPC. 2. Looking to the averments made in the application, it is hereby allowed. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate, is permitted to assist the prosecution. 3. Heard. 4. This is first bail application under section 439 of CrPC. 5. Applicant has been arrested on 14.12.2013 in connection with Crime No.443/2013 registered by Police Station, Padav, district Gwalior, for the offence punishable under sections 306 and 34 of IPC. 6. Perused the case diary. 7. As per prosecution story, Deepesh Chug alias Jimmi has committed suicide in the midnight of 20-21st August, 2013. Thereafter, information was lodged by one Manoj Chawla. After receiving the information in regard to the suicide from Purushottam (father of deceased) Later on, on 22nd August, 2013, statement of Purushottam was recorded by the Police. It was stated by him that one mobile shop was running by him with the help of his son Deepesh and for the purpose of business, possibly he has received loan from various persons and also from Punjab National Bank but he was always remained in tension for repayment. In this statement, no allegation was made against the present applicant Vipin Garg. Thereafter, on 26th August, 2013, one written complaint was sent to Superintendent of Gwalior by Purushottam and the same was received on 29th August, 2013. On perusal of the written complaint, it is clear that it is well drafted possibly by a legal adviser. In the entire complaint, in so many places, sentences has been started by mentioning “That .... That..... That.....” 8. In this complaint, allegations were made against Vipin Garg, the present applicant along with co-accused persons that for recovery of loan, Deepesh was subjected to cruelty and harassment and due to that he has committed suicide. In this written complaint, it was also mentioned that on 25.08.2013 when almirah of Deepesh was being searched then, one suicide note has been found present from the cloths kept in the almirah but this suicide note was not enclosed with the written complaint on 29th August, 2013. Then after a period of about 12-13 days, all of a sudden, on 10th September, 2013, this suicide note was seized by the Police. Then after a period of about 12-13 days, all of a sudden, on 10th September, 2013, this suicide note was seized by the Police. When it was sent for handwriting expert for examination whether it was written by the deceased or not then as per the opinion of Rajendra Verma, Additional State Examiner of Questioned Documents, Govt. of M.P. Bhopal, dated 10-12-13, it was opined by him that, “II The red enclosed questioned writing stamped and marked Q19 to Q26 have been written extensively in two pages while the admitted writing stamped and marked AN1 to AN4 is very limited in extent and quantitatively not found enough for the purpose of comparison. Paucity of admitted writing creating hindrance in expressing definite opinion on the red enclosed writing stamped Q19 to Q26. However few letters available commonly in both the sets exhibit characteristics similarities and pointing towards common authorship. But for thorough examination & critical comparison of each and every letters of both the sets and expressing definite opinion on the red enclosed writing stamped and marked Q19 to Q26, admittedly genuine writing of deceased (15 to 20 pages) are required.” 9. Prayer for bail was made on the ground that (1) entire evidence of investigating agency is false, fabricated and unreliable. (2) Charge-sheet has already been filed and final disposal of the case will take time and (3) that for repayment of loans, cheques were issued by Purushottam, father of deceased, and to avoid payments of these cheques, this false FIR was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 10. Prayer for bail was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor well assisted by Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate, on the ground that the entire evidence is reliable and so far as the delay in filing the written complaint is concerned, Police Officers are under the pressure of applicant and co-accused persons and deliberately have not received the complaint lodged by the complainant, therefore, it is not a case where bail can be granted. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma that bail of co-accused Gagan Garg was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th January, 2014 passed in MCrC No10700/2013. 11. Shri Raju Sharma, counsel for applicant submits that bail of Gagan Garg was dismissed on the ground that investigation was pending. 12. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma that bail of co-accused Gagan Garg was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28th January, 2014 passed in MCrC No10700/2013. 11. Shri Raju Sharma, counsel for applicant submits that bail of Gagan Garg was dismissed on the ground that investigation was pending. 12. After taking into considerations the period of delay in levelling the allegations against applicant and co-accused, opinion of handwriting expert and because the applicant is permanent resident of Gwalior and there is no possibility of abscontion. Now charge-sheet has already been filed, final disposal will take time, Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two lacs only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of CrPC and so also as imposed by the trial Court. 13. It is made clear that if any condition of bail bond is violated by the applicant then this bail order will automatically be treated as cancelled and further steps in accordance with law may be taken by the trial Court against the applicant as well as against the surety, without seeking leave of this Court. 14. A copy of this order be sent to for compliance to the Court concerned.