2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36653 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.
JOGENDRA SINGH RAJPOOT S/O SHRI KARAN
SINGH RAJPOOT, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
FARMER
R/O
VILLAGE
HIRANKHEDI
HASEEL,
BAIRASIY
A,
DISTT.
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
KARAN SINGH RAJPOOT S/O LATE SOORAJ
SINGH RAJPOOT, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
FARMER
R/O
VILLAGE
HIRANKHEDI HASEEL, BAIRASIY
A, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DUBEY, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHY
A PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE
STATION
BAIRASIY
A
BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANTOSH YADAV, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
Pushpendra Dubey,Advocate General
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
T he applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.455/2022 registered at Police Station Bairasiya, District Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants purchased the vehicle, i.e. Tractor on loan taken from the complainant Company, i.e. Mahendra Finance Company and that loan was repaid by taking another loan taken from Shreeram Finance Company on the ground that the vehicle that has been hypothecated in the name of Mahendra Finance Company got released NOC obtained by the present applicants fraudulently from the RTO whereas loan of Mahendra Finance Company was cleared only after taking loan from Shreeram Finance Company, that too, on the basis of the NOC granted by the RTO although the vehicle was hypothecated on the date when the loan had been taken from Shreeram Finance Company. He submits that on a complaint made by the Mahendra Finance Company, the offence got registered against the present applicants. On these submissions, he prays that the present applicants may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the application and submitted that on the basis of the material available on record, it is clear that the present applicants are the purchasers of the vehicle but not the guarantors.
There was only one guarantor namely Halkeram. He, therefore, prays that the applicants are not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.2 namely Karan Singh is aged about 80 years and looking to his age, he may be released on anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid, the bail application of applicant no.1 Jogendra Singh is hereby rejected. However, he is at liberty to move regular bail application before the Court below and on the same being done, the trial Court shall consider the same possibly on the same day.
As far as applicant no.2-Karan Singh is concerned, taking into account the fact that he is aged about 80 years, I am inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is partly allowed .
It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant no.2 namely Karan Singh be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicant no.2 shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao