Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 46 (MP)

Ashok Goyal v. State of M. P.

2015-01-12

G.S.SOLANKI

body2015
ORDER 1. This is the first application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the CrPC for grant of bail. 2. The applicant is in custody since 18.9.2014 in connection with Crime No.372/2014 registered at P.S. Nishatpura, District Bhopal for the offences punishable under sections 420, 120B read with section 34 of the IPC. 3. As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that he being the President and owner of Panchsewa Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit entered into a joint venture agreement with Niho Constructions Company to develop and sell the Duplexes to be constructed on the said land. It is further alleged that the Niho Construction Company had deposited money for construction of houses from different persons but did not construct the houses, in this way they deceived the complainants and other persons. The allegation against the applicant is that he being the partner in joint venture agreement, is involved in the conspiracy to deceive the complainants and other persons. 4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per the agreement, the applicant had already given the land to Niho Construction Company, who sold the land to the complainant and other persons and they got possession thereof. The Niho Construction Company had deposited the money from the complainants and other persons for construction of houses but it has failed to construct the houses, therefore, the complainants filed a petition before Consumer Forum wherein the applicant was also made a party and the Consumer Forum has already exonerated the applicant as there was no agreement between the applicant and the complainants. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for State and the objector have opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is having 26% share in the joint venture with Niho Construction Company and his complicity in the aforesaid conspiracy is very well founded, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case diary along with the receipts of depositing the money by the complainants. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case diary along with the receipts of depositing the money by the complainants. All the receipts are in the name of Niho Construction Company or its employees, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be the person who has deceived the complainants. 7. On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. Manish Datt with Lokesh Jain for applicant; Devendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for State; Amit Singh and Bramhadatt Singh for objectors.