IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ON THE 2^nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34479 of 2022 Between:-

DHEERAJ YADAV S/O SHRI VIJAY YADAV, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 66-B VAIBHAV NAGAR KANADIYA ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI A.S. GARG- SENIOR ADVOCATE AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BAROD, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KANADIA. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL.

SHRI DEVAASHEESH DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [OBJ])

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

ORDER

This is third application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C in crime no.661/2021 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 419 of the IPC registered at police station Kanadiya, Indore.

His first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after the charge sheet is filed. Thereafter, second application was rejected by the order dated 12.05.2022 in M.Cr.C No.20302/2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that repeat application for bail Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH after rejection of earlier application on merit is tenable in view of the law laid down by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Mohan Raikar Vs. State of MP reported in 1999(2) MPLJ 663 and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jeetendra Vs. State of MP reported in (2020) 12 SCC 536 and another judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Seema Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anor reported in AIR 2018 SC 1261 and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirath Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372.

It is further argued that the charge has been framed yesterday only and trial is likely to take time as 24 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also argued that against the present applicant, the total allegation of defrauded amount is Rs.10,00,000/- and the applicant is ready to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- forthwith and the remaining Rs.8,00,000/- will be deposited by him in installments.

Learned counsel for the respondent/state and the objector submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant. The applicant has prepared fraudulent documents and the money was also transferred in his account from the account of co-accused Asgar. It is also alleged that the applicant has defrauded the complainant by impersonating himself in the name of one Sushil Sharma. As per the allegations, the total defrauded amount is to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

So far the law laid down by the various judgments regarding tenability of the present application is not disputed. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra, Seema Singh and Bhagirath that the bail is a rule and jail is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH an exception is also not disputed. The bail application has to be considered on the basis of the allegations and material available against the applicant. In the present case, prima facie as per the allegations against the applicant that the amount was transferred to his account from the account of co-accused Asgar. He has also prepared fraudulent documents. There is also allegation of defrauding the complainant by talking on telephone in the name of one Sushil Sharma. As per the allegation of the prosecution, the defrauded amount is to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

Considering the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)

JUDGE Sourabh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH