Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 76 (MP)

Sunil Jain v. State of M. P.

2021-01-27

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1989/2021, an application under Section 301(1) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the PL during hearing of the matter. For the reasons mentioned therein, the same is hereby allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the PL during hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 4. This is first bail application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail. 5. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit. 6. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 10/2021, registered by police station Huzrat Kotwali, District Gwalior, in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that the allegations against the present applicant is that by playing fraud in connivance with the other co-accused Dashrath Singh. He has sold the property in question to the complainant vide registered sale deed dated 12.04.2012 for consideration of Rs.7,32,000/-. It is submitted that the property in question belongs to one Dasrath Singh and power of attorney with respect to the land was granted to the present applicant by Dhasrath Singh. Dhasrath Singh has demonstrated all the documents to the complainant at the time of execution of sale deed. The complainant being satisfied with the documents, has got executed the sale deed dated 12.04.2012 and the possession of the property was handed over to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is still in possession of the property in question. The complainant being satisfied with the documents, has got executed the sale deed dated 12.04.2012 and the possession of the property was handed over to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is still in possession of the property in question. After lapse of 8 years from the date of execution of the sale deed and the complainant is in possession of the property in question, the complaint has been made that the property in question has been sold to him by playing fraud and suppressing the material information that the property was already sold to some another person. It is submitted that there was specific averments in the sale deed that the property in question is free from in all the compliances and in case of any dispute the purchaser may return the entire money and handed over the possession of the property to the seller and take back the money along with the interest. For long eight years, the complainant kept mum and enjoyed the property, now with an ulterior motive, the complaint has been made. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. The applicant has shown his willingness to furnish bank sureties by which the sale deed has been executed for which an affidavit has also shown and filed along with the bail application. It is submitted that the proceedings are of civil nature and they have been given the colour of criminal case by the complainant. Upon these grounds, he prays for bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed the bail application stating that the fraud have been played by the present applicant as well as other co-accused with the complainant knowing well that the property in question has already been sold to some other person by making of forged documents. The co-accused sold the property to applicant also. It is submitted that the investigation is pending in the matter. Offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC have been registered against the present applicant which have punishable upto life imprisonment. In such circumstances, they have prayed for dismissal of the bail application. They have further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. in Cr. In such circumstances, they have prayed for dismissal of the bail application. They have further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. in Cr. A. No. 53/2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "A criminal Court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial." It is argued that merely by furnishing the bank guarantee the applicant and other co-accused cannot exclude themselves from the act which they have committed. In such circumstances, they have prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 10. The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P.(C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme Court has observed as under: "The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID - 19). Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled. We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum. It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate." 11. From perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the sale deed was got executed on 12.04.2012, wherein the applicant has sold the sale deed with the consent of co-accused Dashrath Singh who has a witnessed and has given to consent to sale the property in question. Dashrath Singh being the owner of the property. The sale deed was got executed far back in the year 2012, no complaint at the relevant time was made by the complainant. The complainant is in possession of the property and is holding the property till date. Now an allegation has been levelled after eight years that the property is sold by fraud. At the time of the purchasing of the property, all formalities and precautions must have been taken by the complainant prior to purchasing the property. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application coupled with the fact that when the undertaking and affidavit has been given by the applicant that he is ready to furnish the bank guarantee for the amount for which the sale deed has been executed. The application is allowed subject to furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 7,32,000/- (Rs. Seven Lac and Thirty Two Thousand only) and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. The application is allowed subject to furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 7,32,000/- (Rs. Seven Lac and Thirty Two Thousand only) and it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer/trial Court, as the case may be with submission of written undertaking that he will abide by the terms and conditions of different circulars, orders as well as guidelines issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic and he will has to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed. 12. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:- 1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; 3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be; 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; 6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; and 7. The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the concerning Police Station in first week of every month till the completion of investigation and after filing of charge sheet as per the directions given by the learned trial Court. 8. The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information. 13. Application stands allowed and disposed of. 14. E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court. 15. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.