Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/48138/2018 of PANCHULAL PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
Court Of Madhya PradeshThe High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-48138-2018
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 PradeshMCRC-48138-2018
(PANCHULAL PRAJAPATIVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
[31][-][12][-][2018]Jabalpur, Dated :
Shri Vipul Saraswat, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Choubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is First application of the applicant Panchulal Prajapati filed undersection 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.381/2016registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Anuppur for the offencepunishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 6(1) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam,
2000.
As per the prosecution case, police registered Crime No.381/2016 atPolice Station Anuppur, District Anuppur for the offence punishable underSections 420, 467,468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC andSection 6 of The Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka SanrakshanAdhiniyam, 2000 against the, C.M.D., M.D., Branch managers and agents ofthe R.B.N. Infrastructures India Limited. The general allegations againstapplicant Panchulal Prajapati and co-accused persons of the case are thatthey had collected money from 103 persons assuring them to double theirmoney within five and seven years. However, they did not pay the moneyeven after the maturity periods. On the other hand, they closed down thecompany office and thus cheated the innocent people. The specificallegations against the applicant and co-accused are that they are the agents ofthe company and collected Rs.2026800/- from the 103 persons cajoling them into buying the products of the companies to get high returns.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has notcommitted any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. Hefurther submitted that applicant is the agent of the said company. Applicanthas already deposited all the amount received from the investors, in the account of the company and gave certificates to the concerned personsissued by the company. The applicant himself is cheated by the company.The applicant is in custody since 01.09.2018 and conclusion of trial is likelyto take a long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted thatthe applicant and all the other accused persons played fraud upon innocentinvestors and deprived them of their hard earned money. Applicant and otherco-accused allured to provide good returns on the deposits tookRs.2026800/- from innocent people. Sufficient evidence is available on recordto connect the applicant with the offence in question so he may not bereleased on bail.
In the case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses , it ismentioned that the applicant who is the Agent of the RBN Infrastructure IndiaLtd. assured the innocent people that on their investing the amount in theCompany on completion of the period of five and seven years, they willreturn back double the amount invested by the investors. Applicant along withother co-accused persons took Rs. 2026800/- from the innocent people andthereafter close down the office of the company and embezzled the amountreceived from the innocent people. So looking to the facts and circumstancesof the case, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)V. JUDGE
(ra)