Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
D.K. Paliwal, J.
Vinod Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 4333-2014
Decided On : 12-06-2014
Anticipatory Bail - Cheating - Sections 420, 506-B, 120-B/34 IPC - The court dismissed the applicant's first bail application for anticipatory bail after considering the allegations against the applicant and the facts of the case, concluding that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506-B, 120-B/34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his co-accused cheated the complainant by showing a false agreement and taking money from him.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the statement of the complainant and the facts of the case, concluding that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail based on the allegations against him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail considering the allegations of cheating and the facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the case of the present applicant was not identical with the case of the co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail, as no amount was paid to the co-accused. Therefore, the court dismissed the applicant's bail application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applicant's first bail application for anticipatory bail, considering the allegations against the applicant and the facts of the case.
D.K. Paliwal, J.
1. Heard.
2. This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 226/2014 registered at P.S. Gole-Ka-Mandir, District Gwalior (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506-B, 120-B/34 IPC.
4. As per prosecution case, complainant Rajiv Jain has made an application to the Police that Sanjay Sharma, Vinod Sharma called him and shown an agreement in between Virendra Singh, Satyendra Singh and Vinod Sharma on 21.08.2012 of about 30 Bighas of land situated in Village Bela has been executed. They assured the profit of his share be given to him and have taken Rs. 8,55,000/- on 26.08.2012. Similarly for another deal applicant has taken Rs. 3,83,500/- from him. When the complainant contacted the owner of the land Virendra Gurjar, then he disclosed that he has not sold his land to anybody. Thereafter, Virendra has published a public notice in the newspaper. Thus, Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma have cheated the complainant. When the complainant told that he will lodge a report, then Sanjay Sharma acknowledged the amount and assured that he will refund the same by executing a stamp paper. On the application enquiry was conducted by the CSP and the case has been registered against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. He has not received any money. Co-accused Satyendra Gurjar has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.05.2014, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3853/2014. Hence, on parity, applicant is also entitled for bail.
6. The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Perused the case diary.
8. It is clear from the statement of the complainant that both Vinod Sharma and Sanjay Sharma shown the agreement in favour of Vinod Sharma and assured him that 50% share would be of Vinod Sharma and remaining share of Sanjay Sharma and complainant. It is further stated that he has given Rs. 8,55,000/- cash to Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma. Again on 3rd September 2013, he has given Rs. 1,00,000/- to Sanjay Sharma and Vinod Sharma and thereafter on 16.10.2012 has given Rs. 50,000/-. From the copy of the agreement it appears that Sanjay Sharma has executed a document acknowledging payment made by the complainant to him and his partner Vinod Sharma. It is true that the co-accused Satyendra Gurjar has been granted anticipatory bail but the case of the present applicant is not identical with the case of Satyendra Gurjar because no amount was paid to Satyendra Gurjar.
9. Considering the allegation against the applicant and the facts of the case, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
10. Accordingly, application is dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
