Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 718 (MP)

Pratapsingh v. State of M. P.

2020-07-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present petition under section 482 of CrPC taking recourse of provisions of section 437 (6) of CrPC. 2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even after 60 days, the evidence could not be completed by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail. 3. Looking at the seriousness of the allegation made against the petitioner, both the trial Court as well as the revision Court have denied relief to the petitioner. 4. Earlier the regular bail was denied to the petitioner twice, even by this Court. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that working as a mediator for the complainant, he obtained cheques of Rs. 44 lakhs to get the sale deed executed in the name of the complainant, but instead got the same executed in the name of his (petitioner's) real brother, Mohan Singh. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it was the complainant himself, who taking recourse of agreement to sell with the original owners of the land, got the sale deed executed in favour of the brother of the petitioner. 7. A specific query was raised before the learned Counsel to show the payment of sale consideration to the complainant for the sale deed executed in favour of his real brother Mohan Singh, but the same was not replied satisfactorily. 8. The power under section 437 (6) CrPC is not absolute. A discretion is provided to the Court to consider the several aspect of the case and it may deny bail, if some justified reasons are available on the record. Exercising this discretion, the trial Court as well as the revision Court, both have considered that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. Petitioner and his brother have deceived the complainant and used his cheques for earning wrongful gain in their favour to the tune of Rs. 44 lakhs. 9. It is pointed out by the learned Panel Lawyer that the petitioner and his brother has further sold this land and have earned a huge profit. 10. Petitioner and his brother have deceived the complainant and used his cheques for earning wrongful gain in their favour to the tune of Rs. 44 lakhs. 9. It is pointed out by the learned Panel Lawyer that the petitioner and his brother has further sold this land and have earned a huge profit. 10. After going through the nature and gravity of the offence, the allegation made against the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Revision Court, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the order. The petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be and is dismissed hereby.