Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/51810/2020 of MUKESH Vs STATE OF M.P. on 31 December 2020
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.51810 of 2020 (Mukesh
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.51810 of 2020(Mukesh vs. State of MP)
M.Cr.C. No.51808 of 2020(Vishnu Prasad vs. State of MP)
Indore, dated :31.12.2020
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants ispresent in person through Video Conferencing.
Shri Zeeshan Khan, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant – State is present in person through VideoConferencing.
Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard. Perused the case diary.
Both are first applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. forgrant of bail. Applicants – Mukesh S/o Rameshwar Jat andVishnu Prasad S/o Hari Prasad are implicated in CrimeNo.443/2020 registered at Police Station – Khategaon, DistrictDewas for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 328, 386,323, 343 and 506/34 of IPC.
As per prosecution story, complainant Ashutosh Joshisubmitted a written complaint on 27.09.2020 in the PoliceStation Khategaon that he is the owner of a land bearing surveyNo.409/2/3/21, area 19/100 ft. which he had purchased in theyear 2016 from Smt. Maya Agrawal. He has further alleged thathe took a loan of Rs.50,000/- from Vishnu Prasad, who isapplicant in MCRC No.51808/2020 in the month of August,2020. He called him in Sanwariya Palace Hotel on 25.08.2020for execution of certain documents. He was given certain drugs
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDOREM.Cr.C. No.51810 of 2020(Mukesh vs. State of MP)
and became unconscious and the applicants took him to theoffice of the Registrar on 26.08.2020 and got executed the sale-deed. On the basis of said complaint, the police has registered acase under Sections 420, 328, 386, 323, 343 and 506/34 of IPCagainst the applicants and arrested them. Now the investigationis complete and challan has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there was adispute in respect of some money transactions and therefore, theyhave been implicated falsely in this case. Now compromise hasbeen arrived at between the parties and the dispute has beensettled between them.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits thatnow he has no grievance against the applicants if they arereleased on bail.
Vide order dated 24.12.2020, this Court had directed theInvestigating Officer to verify the compromise between theparties.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that theInvestigating Officer has verified the factum of compromise andthe matter has been compromised between the parties. Most ofthe offence registered against the applicants are compoundableand there is a likelihood of acquittal of these applicants on thebasis of compromise.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of thecase, in my considered opinion, this is a fit case for grant of bail.Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. No.51810 of 2020(Mukesh vs. State of MP)
case, both these bail applications are allowed and the applicantsare directed to be released on bail upon their furnishing apersonal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Fortythousand only) each with one surety each to the satisfaction ofthe Trial Court for their appearance before the Court duringpendency of trial.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned forcompliance.
M.Cr.C. No.51810/2020 and M.Cr.C. No.51808/2020 areallowed and stands disposed of Certified copy, as per rules.
gp
(Vivek Rusia)
Vacation Judge
Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 2020.12.31 17:38:08 +05'30'