Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/575/2024 of ARUN PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 575 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ARUN PATEL S/O DEEWAN SINGH PAL, AGED ABOUT 30Y E A R S , R/O BEHORIPAR POLICE STATIONSTATIONGANJ, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANKIT CHOPRA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICTNARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRADEEP GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 343 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ANIL CHADHAR S/O SHR PRAKASH CHADHAR, AGEDABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS RESIDENTOF MUSHRAN WARD SANKAL ROAD KANDELI TAHSILAND DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PRATEEKTIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES T A T I O N KOTWALI DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRADEEP GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
These applications coming on for admission this day, the court passedthe 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
These are the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.789/2022, dated11.10.2022, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District - Narsinghpur (M.P.)for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409,120-B of IPC. Applicant is in detention since 13.12.2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, Atul Kale was posted as a Peon inLabour Court. His duty was to get the order sheets and other papers signedfrom the Presiding Officer. He was also assigned the work of taking bankrelated documents and correspondence to the bank. On 26.04.2022, one lettersigned by the Presiding Officer was received but there was no mention of thesame in Dispatch Register of the Court. It was found that Atul Kale who wasentrusted with bank related work has embezzled a large amount worthRs.20,00,000/-. When his explanation was sought, he confessed everything inwriting and assured to deposit the entire embezzled amount. In investigation, itwas found that he has transferred some embezzled money in the accounts ofpresent applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that applicants arenot the main accused. They had borrowed the money from the main accused incovid period as they were facing financial crises. Atul Kale had transferredsome money in their account as loan amount. They have nothing to do with thedefalcation of money by Atul Kale. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicantsmay be released on bail pending the trial.
4 . O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed theprayer for grant of bail to the applicants.
5 . In this case main allegations are against Atul Kale. Therefore, havingtaken into consideration the totality of allegations against the present applicantsand other facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that finalconclusion of trial of the case will take considerable time, but withoutexpressing anything on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a case inwhich further pre-trial detention of the applicants is not warranted.Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicants, standsallowed.
6 . It is directed that applicants - Arun Patel and Anil Chadhar bereleased on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for their regular appearance beforethe trial Court during trial with a condition that they shall remain present beforethe concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. They shall abide byall the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in caseo f bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGE