Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 843 (MP)

Vinod Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2014-07-17

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. On behalf of the applicant, this second repeat petition is preferred under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail as he is in custody since 9.1.2014 in connection of Crime No.RC0082011A0014, registered at Police Station CBI, Bhopal for the offence punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of IPC and section 13 (2), r/w section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Earlier application of the applicant filed in this regard under the same provision has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 27.1.2014 in MCrC No.1062/2014 by extending a liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional circumstances/facts or after examining the material prosecution witnesses, whichever is earlier. 3. On asking the applicant’s counsel that how many witnesses have been examined in the trial, on which he fairly submits that till today no such witness has been examined in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant after referring the statements of Mahendra Singh Tiwari and Anurag Vyas recorded under section 164 of CrPC said that mere perusal of such statements, it is apparent that the applicant was not involved in any manner in the alleged offence and inspite that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. 5. He further said that the present applicant was working in the firm of Pushpendra Mishra, which was run in the name of Prakhar Construction and such Pushpendra Mishra taking advantage of his higher position has constituted a dummy firm in the name of Trupati Construction, which is in the name of present applicant as proprietor of such firm and in such premises, the alleged incriminating acts were committed by Pushpendra Mishra and not by the present applicant. In continuance, he also argued that the alleged loan was sanctioned for the joint venture of the aforesaid both the firms and the amount was also disbursed by the bank in the name of both firms and thereafter such sum was shifted by the present applicant from his account to the account of Pushpendra Mishra. In such premises, he submits that Pushpendra Mishra has been released on bail and thus on the ground of parity also by allowing the petition, the applicant be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Siddique learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Shri Mohd. In such premises, he submits that Pushpendra Mishra has been released on bail and thus on the ground of parity also by allowing the petition, the applicant be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Siddique learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Shri Mohd. Amjad, learned Standing Counsel for CBI with the assistance of the case diary argued that by practicing fraud, the applicant accompanied with some other co- accused has forged and fabricated the documents of title and on that basis, the application for grant of loan was given to the bank. On sanctioning such loan of more than Rs.2 crores and 20 lacs, the same were deposited in the account of applicant and Pushpendra Mishra separately and subsequently applicant transferred the same to Pushpendra Mishra and thereby the applicant by practicing the fraud has committed the offence of impersonation by preparing the forged and fabricating title deeds in the name of fictitious person and created the equitable mortgaged of such documents with the bank to secure the aforesaid loan. In such premises, the applicant has committed very serious offence and unless the material prosecution witnesses are examined in the matter, as directed earlier by this Court, the applicant could not be released on bail otherwise he may prejudice the case of the prosecution by winning over the witnesses. He further said that till today not even a single witness has been examined in the matter and, therefore, the present petition has also not been filed on behalf of the applicant under the liberty, which was given in the aforesaid earlier order dated 27.1.2014 and prayed for dismissal of the IA. 7. Having heard, perused the case diary along with the aforesaid earlier dismissal order of the bail application dated 27.1.2014. It is apparent from such order that after perusing the case diary on some query made by the Court, which was based on the available collected evidence in the case diary, on which the applicant’s counsel had himself withdrawn the application at that stage with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional circumstances/facts or after examining the material prosecution witnesses, whichever is earlier. It is apparent that till today no material change has taken place in the case. Even none of the witnesses of the prosecution have been examined in the trial. It is apparent that till today no material change has taken place in the case. Even none of the witnesses of the prosecution have been examined in the trial. So, firstly on such count this application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and secondly looking to the seriousness of the offence unless some material prosecution witnesses are examined in the matter, I am not inclined to allow this petition. Consequently the same is hereby dismissed. ............................