Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/54124/2023 of TEJKUMAR JOSHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54124 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
TEJKUMAR JOSHI S/O RATANLAL JOSHI, AGED ABOUT55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST WARD NO.15, VILLAGE BARAWADA, TEHSIL JAORA, DISTRICTRATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI ABHAY SARASWAT - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BARAWADA,DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the 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
This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalfof the applicant in connection with Crime No.331/2023 registered at PoliceStation - Barawada Ratlam (M.P.) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 26/09/2023, complainant Sitabailodged a report before police against accused persons stating that she is aresident of Jaora, District Ratlam and stays with her son Nitesh. One AzharKhan told the complainant his son Nitesh about accused applicant Tejkumarwho wishes to sell his land located in village Badawada which is registered in the name of applicant’s father Ratanlal and insisted the complainant and her sonto purchase the said land. On the said proposal around 02 months ago, AzharKhan took the complainant and her son to visit the land and went to Nagda roadin village Badawada and finalized the land. Thereafter, complainant finalized thesale at the price of Rs 8,00,000/- (Rs Eight Lakhs) per Bigha and thus the totaldeal price was final at Rs 10,51,000/- for land bearing Survey no 18/14 total0.405 hectare. In furtherance of the said deal, complainant’s son Niteshtransferred Rs 40,000/- in the bank account of applicant’s father Ratanlal andfurther deposit Rs 28,900/- in the bank account of applicant’s father Ratanlal.Second installment of amount to the tune of Rs 07,82,000/- was handed over incash to accused Ratanlal at the time of Registry and perform the registry of thesaid land in the name of complainant. Remaining Rs 02,00,000/- was handedover in cash to accused applicant Tejkumar and thus complainant and her sonhas paid total Rs 10,51,000/- to the accused persons for the said land. On03/08/2023, when complainant and her son went to Tehsil office for TitleTransfer of the said land, it came into their knowledge that the said land wassold to one Ratanlal s/o Hemraj in the year 1992 and despite this, the accusedpersons have again sold the said land to the complainant on 13/07/2023. On thesaid complaint, police registered crime against the accused persons and arrestthe present applicant in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far the chargesunder section 467, 468 are concerned, the trial court has discharged theapplicant and has framed only charge under section 420 of IPC. It is furthersubmitted that the allegation against the applicant is only that he was present atthe time of alleged transaction and some money was handed over to him. He isin jail since 20.10.2023. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed.
4. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail andsubmits that there are as many as 11 criminal antecedents including the presentcase against the applicant. He is a habitual criminal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into considerationthe allegation against the applicant and the fact that the investigation has beencompleted and the charge sheet has been filed, I am of the view that theapplicant is entitled for grant of bail, however on certain conditions. Therefore,without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application isallowed.
6. It is directed that Applicant- Tejkumar shall be released from custodyupon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below on thefollowing conditions :-
(i) that applicant shall not indulge in any offence during thependency of trial and if he indulges in any offence during the bail, theprosecution may file an application for cancellation of bail and
(ii) the applicant shall mark his presence before the concernedpolice on every 15th day of the month during the pendency of trial.
7. A typed copy of this order is being forwarded to the Office of theAdvocate General, on their email address, for intimation to the Police Stationconcerned. The office is requested to forward a copy of this order to the courtbelow.
C.c. as per rules.
Sourabh
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE