Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 867 (MP)

Anshuman Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2014-07-23

T.K.KAUSHAL

body2014
ORDER 1. These are the applications under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners for offences under sections 420, 409, 467,468,471, 506, 120B, 34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.98/2014 of Police Station – Ratibadh, Bhopal. 2. According to prosecution, on 3.3.2014, a case was registered at Police Station Ratibadh, Bhopal under directions issued under section 156(3) of CrPC of JMFC on the basis of complaint of complainant Richa Singh making allegations against petitioners and two other accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that main dispute is that who is authorised to work for Acropolis Institute of Chanakya Kotilya Sikshan Sansthan Samiti, the complainant Richa Singh, or the petitioner or Anshuman Tiwari? 4. Learned counsel further submits that though on 25.3.2013 in general meeting, complainant was elected as a secretary, who has been removed from the post on 7.12.2013 on the basis of her own resignation. During aforesaid period, in the capacity of Secretary, complainant misused her powers and freezed the regular bank accounts of Institute hence petitioners opened new bank account in ICICI Bank just to ensure the smooth functioning of College. Further submits that prior to lodging of present FIR i.e. on 5.2.2014, petitioners preferred written report at Station House Officer, Police Station Juni, Indore making allegations of forgery, cheating etc. against the complainant and others. As a counter blast, present report has been lodged without properly following the procedure under section 156(3) of the CrPC. 5. In response, learned Govt. Advocate and objector submits that after 25.3.2013, i.e. from the date of appointment of Richa Singh as a Secretary, petitioners did not have any position and right to work for aforesaid society and college, even then, they not only deliberately interfered the working and has created a parallel body and opened new bank account and act, amounts to forgery. 6. Further objected that petitioners had illegally withdrew amount of Rs.8,11,500/- and also siphoned dishonestly amount of Rs.57.00 lacs, in his personal fake company Clean Tech, which was meant for scholarship of 204 students belonging to SC/ST caste. On 7.12.2013 also, petitioners master minded the forged resignation of the complainant. 7. Considering the aforesaid, it becomes clear that complainant party and petitioners party both are making allegations against each other of forgery, cheating etc. On 7.12.2013 also, petitioners master minded the forged resignation of the complainant. 7. Considering the aforesaid, it becomes clear that complainant party and petitioners party both are making allegations against each other of forgery, cheating etc. Petitioner lodged a report on 5.2.2014 at Police Station-Juni, Indore and complainant party preferred a complaint in the Court of JMFC and got a case registered at Police Station Ratibadh, Indore in the month of March, 2014. No one is less. Who is the real authority of the society will be decided in the civil suit which has been preferred by the complainant. 8. Comparing both aforesaid reports and other documents including Bank Account etc. and particularly in view of the fact that petitioner Anshuman Tiwari and the complainant, Richa Singh both, amongst other persons, stood as guarantors, for loan of rupees about 3.00 Crores advanced to the Society by State Bank of India, merely because of ego clashes and overambitions, other stake holders cannot put to the disadvantageous position and inconveniences, hence it appears to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail but with conditions. 9. Petitioners are directed to join the investigation immediately and will cooperate with the investigating agency. In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bonds in a sum of Rs.20.00 Lacs each with one surety of Rs.10.00 lacs each and with one Bank Guarantee of Rs.10.00 lacs each respectively, to the satisfaction of arresting officer/trial Court. 10. At the time of arrest, petitioners shall ensure their availability for sufficient long time for interrogation and processing of their handwritings and signatures also. 11. During currency of bail, petitioners shall not make any transaction in Bank Account No.11900000629 of Acropolis Institute of ICICI Bank. 12. Conditions of section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the petitioners during currency of bail. Sankalp Kochar for petitioners; C.K. Mishra, Government Advocate for respondent/State; H.S. Dubey for objector; S.B. Shrivastava for objector.