IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK ON THE 21^st OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10904 of 2024 Between:-

GAJENDRA SHARMA S/O SHRI GULAB CHAND SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O BALLA KA DERA TEHSIL DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI DESHRAJ BHARGAVA - ADVOCATE )

AND STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION BAHODAPUR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH KUSHWAH – DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI D.S. KUSHWAH – ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This is the first application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein he is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.130/2024 registered at Police Station Bahodapur District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that false case has been registered against him and he is apprehending his arrest on the basis of above referred offence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he is Branch Sales Manager (BSM) of Bajaj Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and he has no direct role to play so far as commission of offence under Section 409 of IPC is concerned. Prime accused is allegedly Naveen Bajaj. In another case also he suffered around three weeks' incarceration as pretrial detention registered at crime No.138/2023 at the instance of one Sahab Singh Yadav at Police Station Sirol District Gwalior. It appears that in the said case, prime accused Naveen Bajaj has settled the matter with the then complainant and therefore, the matter is likely to be wound up. It is further submitted that contents of order dated 25-09-2023 passed in M.Cr.C.No.42860/2023 reveals that role of the applicant was not implicative in nature. He only tried to promote business of company and discharged the duties assigned to him. Confinement would bring social disrepute and personal inconvenience to him. He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and keep himself available as and when required. He would not be source of harassment and embarrassment in any manner to the complainant. He further intends to perform community service voluntarily by serving the Environment/National/Social cause. Under these grounds, he prayed for bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State as well as Complainant opposed the prayer made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of bail application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the rival parties and the fact the applicant is agent only and Company has tried to cheat the complainant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court intends to allow this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Investigating Agency.

6. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant shall not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/his 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 shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant sha