Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 634 (MP)

Vinod Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-06-12

D.K.PALIWAL

body2014
Judgment: D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 226/2014 registered at P.S. Gole-Ka-Mandir, District Gwalior (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506-B, 120-B/34 IPC. 4. As per prosecution case, complainant Rajiv Jain has made an application to the Police that Sanjay Sharma, Vinod Sharma called him and shown an agreement in between Virendra Singh, Satyendra Singh and Vinod Sharma on 21.08.2012 of about 30 Bighas of land situated in Village Bela has been executed. They assured the profit of his share be given to him and have taken Rs. 8,55,000/- on 26.08.2012. Similarly for another deal applicant has taken Rs. 3,83,500/- from him. When the complainant contacted the owner of the land Virendra Gurjar, then he disclosed that he has not sold his land to anybody. Thereafter, Virendra has published a public notice in the newspaper. Thus, Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma have cheated the complainant. When the complainant told that he will lodge a report, then Sanjay Sharma acknowledged the amount and assured that he will refund the same by executing a stamp paper. On the application enquiry was conducted by the CSP and the case has been registered against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. He has not received any money. Co-accused Satyendra Gurjar has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.05.2014, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3853/2014. Hence, on parity, applicant is also entitled for bail. 6. The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Perused the case diary. 8. It is clear from the statement of the complainant that both Vinod Sharma and Sanjay Sharma shown the agreement in favour of Vinod Sharma and assured him that 50% share would be of Vinod Sharma and remaining share of Sanjay Sharma and complainant. It is further stated that he has given Rs. 8,55,000/- cash to Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma. Again on 3rd September 2013, he has given Rs. 1,00,000/- to Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma and thereafter on 16.10.2012 has given Rs. 50,000/-. It is further stated that he has given Rs. 8,55,000/- cash to Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma. Again on 3rd September 2013, he has given Rs. 1,00,000/- to Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma and thereafter on 16.10.2012 has given Rs. 50,000/-. From the copy of the agreement it appears that Sanjay Sharma has executed a document acknowledging payment made by the complainant to him and his partner Vinod Sharma. It is true that the co-accused Satyendra Gurjar has been granted anticipatory bail but the case of the present applicant is not identical with the case of Satyendra Gurjar because no amount was paid to Satyendra Gurjar. 9. Considering the allegation against the applicant and the facts of the case, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, application is dismissed.