Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/12579/2016 of RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 29-12-2016 Shri
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-12579-2016
(RAJENDRA PRASADVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-12-2016
Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned counsel for therespondent/State.
Case diary is available. Arguments heard.
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatorybail.
The present applicant apprehends his arrest by Police StationBagli, District Dewas in Crime No. 637/2016 under Sections 423,468, 471 and 120-B/34 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, present applicant isagent/mediator of the land in respect of which the sale deedexecuted by the present applicant was found forged. It is furtheralleged that Judicial Commission was set up by the Governmentto enquire various allegations regarding preparation of forgedsale deeds in respect of land given to oustees due toconstruction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River. Inthe present case, main accused is the person, who got preparedthe forged sale-deed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant wasagent/mediator. The judicial Commission set up by theGovernment found that many forged registered sale deeds wereexecuted and being agent/mediator the present applicant tookactive part in execution of such forged sale deeds. He furthersubmits that during hearing by the Judicial Commission, all the facts and other documents were collected. Now only a formalinvestigation is to be done for which the presence of the presentapplicant is not required. However, he undertakes that thepresent applicant if granted bail would co-operate during theinvestigation.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer.Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case intoconsideration, I find that it is fit case where the benefit ofprovision under section 438 of Cr.P.C. may be extended to thepresent applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall bereleased on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and a solventsurety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerningMagistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may be, with the following conditions:-
(i) that he shall make himself available forinterrogation by a police officer as and whenrequired.interrogation by a police officer as and whenrequired.
(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, make anyinducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Courtor to any police officer.inducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Courtor to any police officer.
(iii) that he would comply with the conditionsenumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.meticulously.enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.meticulously.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA)JUDGE