Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1129 (MP)

Ajit Singh Yadav v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-10-15

ANJULI PALO

body2020
JUDGMENT Anjuli Palo, J. - This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.119/2019 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Bhopal for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 3. As per prosecution story, the applicant is a licensed contractor and running business in the name of M/s. Asian Construction Company. The Government has given contract to the applicant for construction of Block 1 and 2 of Golden Jubilee Boys Hostel at Maulana Azad Technical Institute of Technology (MANIT) Campus, Bhopal. The company hired the services of M/s. R.S. Electrical, Govt. Licensed Contractor to complete the assigned work. After successfully completion of assigned work, the applicant in discharge of legal obligation had paid the amount of work done by the Associate Contractor. With the respondent, one M.V. Surya Rao has lodged the complaint against the applicant under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, therefore, aforesaid crime is registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The dispute between the complainant and applicant is purely of civil nature. The learned trial Court has wrongly declared the applicant as absconder and dismissed his prayer applying the principle laid down in case of Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of M.P., (2014) 2 SCC 171 . The applicant is not a habitual offender. There is no possibility of his absconding in future or tempering with the prosecution witness. He will cooperate in the investigation. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the objector has also opposed the prayer. 7. After considering the contentions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the applicant is not a habitual offender. Though, there is a dispute between the parties relating to some amount about Rs.30,07,155/- but that amount is due or not, it is a matter of evidence and that issue can be adjudicated during the trial on the basis of evidence In the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to allow the anticipatory bail of the applicant. Though, there is a dispute between the parties relating to some amount about Rs.30,07,155/- but that amount is due or not, it is a matter of evidence and that issue can be adjudicated during the trial on the basis of evidence In the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to allow the anticipatory bail of the applicant. Therefore, this application is allowed subject to depositing 40% amount of a sum of Rs.30,07,155/- before the trial Court within three days. 8. It is directed that, in the event of arrest, if the applicant Ajit Singh shows the receipt of aforesaid deposited amount, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer (Investigating Officer) for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial, as the case may be. 9. It is directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. It is made clear that the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is so directed and cooperate in the investigation and he shall also appear before the trial Court regularly as and when directed. 11. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.