Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/13165/2016 of JOGILAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 29-12-2016 Shri Nilesh
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.
MCRC-13165-2016
(JOGILALVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-12-2016
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned counsel for therespondent/State.
Case diary is available. Arguments heard.
This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.
The present applicants were arrested by the Police Station Bagli,District Dewas in Crime No. 610/2016 under Sections 420, 467,468, 471, 34 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, present applicants arebonafide purchasers of the land in respect of which the sale deedexecuted by the present applicants was found forged. It is furtheralleged that Judicial Commission was set up by the Government toenquire various allegations regarding preparation of forged saledeeds in respect of land given to oustees due to construction ofSardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. In the present case,main accused is the person, who got prepared the forged sale-deed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants werebonafide purchasers. The judicial Commission set up by theGovernment found that many forged registered sale deeds wereexecuted and being bonafide purchasers the present applicantstook active part in execution of such forged sale deeds. He furthersubmits that during hearing by the Judicial Commission, all thefacts and other documents were collected. Now only a formalinvestigation is to be done for which the presence of the presentapplicants is not required. However, he undertakes that thepresent applicants if granted bail would co-operate during theinvestigation.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer.
After going through the case diary and taking into considerationthe allegation against applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant ofbail. The application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. isallowed.
It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on theirfurnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousandonly) each and one solvent surety each of the like amount to thesatisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for their appearance onall the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard duringtrial.
They are further directed that on being so released on bail, theywould comply with the conditions enumerated under section437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA)JUDGE