Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1487 (MP)

Manoj Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-12

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This is first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail. 2. Applicant has been arrested on 22.11.2022 by Police Station- Porsa, District Morena (MP), in connection with Crime No.522/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC. 3. In brief, prosecution story is that on 04.11.2022 complainant Deepak Singh Tomar lodged a report against present applicant-accused-Manoj Sharma, his father Makhanlal and his brother-in-law Awdhesh Sharma alleging that two years back, accused Makhanlal, present applicant Manoj Sharma and accused Awdhesh Sharma came to me and requested that they are in need of money and they wants to sell their field situated at Gopalpura. On their repeated request, one Ramnaresh Sharma urged the complainant to help them. Thereafter, complainant became ready to purchase 0.210 hactare land out of Rakwa 1 Bigha 2 Viswa situated at Khasra No.1988/1. Complainant paid Rs. 14,39,8000/- to the accused persons in presence of Ramnaresh Sharma. Thereafter on 28.08.2020, documents regarding sale were prepared. Thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic, sale-deed could not be executed. Since sellers were residing at Delhi and Dholpur, they went there. When the complainant asked them for registration of sale-deed, they assured him many times but did not come back for registration of sale-deed. Thereafter in the month of May, 2022, complainant alongwith witness Karan Singh Tomar and Ramnaresh Sharma went to the house of accused Makhanlal situated at P-1/723, Sultanpuri Delhi where accused persons met them and told them that they are in dire need of money and offered them to purchase the entire field. The deal was fixed at Rs.40 lacs. At that time, complainant paid Rs.12 lacs to them. An affidavit was prepared bears thumb impression of Makhanlal and signature of witnesses. Remaining amount was agreed to pay at the time of registration of sale-deed. Thereafter despite repeated request made by complainant, the accused persons did not execute sale-deed in his favour. On 23.12.2021, the complainant came to know that accused Makhanlal Sharma has executed sale-deed of the said field in favour one Prathvim Singh Tomar. Accused persons defrauded the complainant of Rs.26,39,000/-. On the report of complainant, crime No.522/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Applicant was arrested on 22.11.2022. 4. Accused persons defrauded the complainant of Rs.26,39,000/-. On the report of complainant, crime No.522/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Applicant was arrested on 22.11.2022. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted complainant is trying to give criminal colour to a civil dispute. Since the offence is less than 7 years, the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2014 Cr.L.J. 3707 have not been complied with by the Investigating Agency. Applicant is in custody since 22.11.2022. Conclusion of trial will take time. The applicant is ready to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by the Court. On such premises, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently as well as learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. 6. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the application should be allowed and by allowing the application it is ordered that if the applicant furnishes a cash surety of Rs.25,000/- alongwith a personal bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he should be released on bail. 7. He will present during trial before the trial Court on each and every date. In case of any default, cash surety of Rs.25,000/- shall be forfeited without giving any notice. 8. Application stands allowed and disposed of. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. Certified copy as per rules.