Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3920/2024 of VINOD SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3920 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.VINOD SHARMA S/O SHRI SHIVCHARAN, AGED 55YEARS, OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST, R/O DAKKHANA ROAD, JAURA TEHSIL JAURA DISTRICTMORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ASHOK SHARMA S/O SHRI SHIVCHARAN, AGED65 YEARS, OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST, R/ODAK KHANA ROAD, JAURA TEHSIL JAURA,DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)65 YEARS, OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST, R/ODAK KHANA ROAD, JAURA TEHSIL JAURA,DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANTS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ROHIT MISHRA - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FORRESPONDENT/STATE)(BY SHRI ATUL GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
I.A.No.2485 of 2024, an application under Section 301 (2) of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate and his associates are permitted to assist the prosecution.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of theCr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No. 6 of 2024 registeredat Police Station Jaura, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence under Sections420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC,1860.
Learned counsel for the applicants/accused argued that the applicants areinnocent and have been falsely implicated. The applicants/accused were not aparty before the Court of Tahsildar during proceeding under Section 248 ofMPLRC. It is further argued that before the Tahsildar during the saidproceedings, co-accused Subhash did not inform that any agreement has beenexecuted in respect of the land. However, co-accused Subhash during theproceedings in appeal pending before the SDO filed agreement to sell for thefirst time. Present applicants were not a party to that appeal and without givingany opportunity to the applicants/accused to explain the execution of agreementto sell, the order of registration of F.I.R. has been passed. Further submissionis that as per allegation of prosecution, applicants /accused are onlySahmatikarta (Consenter) in alleged agreement to sell. This is a case of civilnature and complainant is trying to colour in a criminal case. Pujari had no locusto raise objections. Applicants are permanent resident of District Morena(M.P.), therefore, there is no possibility of their absconsion or tampering withthe prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed to allow the anticipatory bailapplication of the applicants.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for therespondent/State as well as the counsel for the complainant vehementlyopposed the application and argued that the land belonging to temple aboutwhich accused persons are trying to get ownership on the basis of false and fabricated agreement to sell. No proceeding before the Revenue Court ispending. Under these circumstances and in view of gravity of offence, theapplicants are not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diaryavailable on record.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, but withoutexpressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it isdirected that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail onfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One LacOnly)eachwith a solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer/Investigating Authority.
The applicants shall further abide by other conditions enumeratedunder Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shallcooperate in the investigation, otherwise this bail order shallautomatically stand cancelled.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
AK/-
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGE