Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 1526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Mishra, J.
Sanjay Singh Baghel – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 3153 of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Shri Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri Sanjeev Singh, Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court's decision was influenced by the clear indication of offences under the RBI Act and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under Sections 409, 420 & 34 of IPC - RBI Act - [Sections 409, 420, 34, RBI Act] - The court rejected the bail application of the accused who was arrested in connection with embezzlement of a huge amount without proper authority of law in the share market. The court found that offences under the RBI Act were clearly made out against the accused, and directed action against delinquent employees for not registering the case under the proper sections.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a registered broker in the share market, was arrested in connection with embezzlement of a huge amount without proper authority of law. The applicant filed a bail application citing delay in trial and arguing that there was virtually no progress in the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations against the applicant, the arguments presented by both parties, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The court found that the offences under the RBI Act were clearly made out against the applicant and rejected the bail application.
Issues: Delay in trial, involvement of the accused in embezzlement, and the possibility of the accused fleeing if enlarged on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the absconding period of the applicant, and the clear indication of offences under the RBI Act.
Final Decision: The court rejected the bail application and directed action against delinquent employees for not registering the case under the proper sections.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A.No.3309/2022 an application for assisting the panel lawyer.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3. Shri Yogesh Soni, learned counsel is permitted to assist the panel lawyer.
4. This is Second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant. His first application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 29.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.16043/2021.
5. The applicant is arrested on 22.02.2021 by Police Station Kotwali, District Shahdol (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.368 of 2015 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 & 34 of IPC.
6. The allegation against the present applicant is that he has cheated the complainant by misrepresentation. He is a registered broker in the share market. Some investments were made by the complainant and others through the present applicant in the share market. On asking for the payment, the cheques were issued by the applicant which were dishonoured. The present application has been filed on the ground of delay in trial. It is argued that keeping the applicant in custody for a long period will amount to pre-trial conviction. There is virtually no progress in the trial. He is in custody since 22.02.2021, investigation is over in the matter and charge sheet has already been filed. No further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is argued that he is a registered share broker having a DMAT account. The agreement were shown between the applicant and complainant and they with their own sweet will has agreed to deposit the amount through the applicant in the share market, therefore, it cannot be a case of cheating. It is submitted when there was loss in the share market, these F.I.R. has been registered. The cheques have been issued by the applicant which have been dishonoured, therefore, at the most, case under the Negotiable Instruments Act could have been registered against the applicant. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering his bail application. The other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the objector have vehemently opposed the application stating that the offence was registered in the year 2015 and applicant remained absconded for a considerable period of almost 7 years and with great difficulty he has been arrested. There is an involvement of more than 1.00 Crores of rupees in the case. The applicant showing himself to be a licenced and registered share broker has asked the complainant and others to make investment through him and they will earn great profit but no licence is available with the applicant. There is nothing in the case diary nor in the file, filed along with the present application to show that applicant is a registered share market broker. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that he is having a DMAT account in his name then the DMAT account will be for his own use only. He cannot make investment for others through DMAT account without there being any proper licence for running a share market. It is submitted that by a false play he has got the complainant and others to invest into the share market through him. It is further submitted that if he is enlarged on bail then there is every possibility that he will again flew away. The case of the other co-accused is entirely different from that of the present applicant. In such circumstances, no case for bail is made out.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the abscontion period of the applicant, this Court is not inclined to allow this application at this stage.
9. The application is hereby rejected.
10. In view of the order passed by this Court on 14.2.2022, the S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali is present before this Court. A specific question was asked to him that whether charge-sheet is filed in the matter, he fairly submits that
