MCRC/61794/2022 of SUNIL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2022

ORDER

Heard with the aid of case diary.

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the instant bail application on behalf of applicant No.2 - Sandeep.

Prayer accepted.

Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of applicant No.2 Ankit.

Now, this application is considered only on behalf of applicant No.1 -Sunil Sharma.

T his is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seekinganticipatory bail, as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection withCrime No.156/2022 registered at Police Station Kanadiya, Distt. Indore (M.P.)for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of IPC.

Prosecution case in brief is that applicant being an office bearer ofHaryana Grih Nirman Sanstha Maryadit took an amount of Rs.30.00 lakh on thepretext of executing sale deed of plots and misappropriated the same.Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution caseitself the amount was deposited in the account of Haryana Grih Nirman SansthaMaryadit, Indore and applicant did not take any amount in his personalcapacity. Admittedly, at the time of depositing of amount, applicant's fatherLaxminarayan Sharma was the president of the society. Now, the Sub-Registrarof Sahkari Sanstha has been appointed as Manager of the society and thesociety being controlled by him, not by the applicant. Applicant has only beenimplicated in the matter because he is one of the office bearer of the society andson of Laxminarayan Sharma. Nothing specific has been alleged against him.His custodial interrogation/trial is not required in the matter. Trial will certainlytake time to conclude therefore, under such circumstances, applicant is entitledfor grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State as well as counselfor the complainants oppose the prayer and submit that the amount given by thecomplainants was although deposited in the account of society but the same was taken by the applicant no.1. Property for which the amount was taken, isdisputed property and applicant knowing the same, took the amount from thecomplainant and misappropriated the same. Therefore, applicant is not entitledfor anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As per prosecution case itself the amount said to be received by theapplicant, was deposited in the account of Haryana Grih Nirman SansthaMaryadit, Indore. Admittedly, the said society has been taken over by theofficials of Sahkari Sanstha, Inodre and is not under control of the applicant. Inview of the aforesaid, considering the nature of allegations alleged against theapplicant and overall facts and circumstances, without commenting on themerits of the case, the application is allowed in respect of applicant No.1.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.1Sunil Sharma,she shall be released on bail upon her furnishing personal bond in the sum ofRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the likeamount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for her appearance beforethe Trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated insub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

M.Cr.C. stands disposed of, accordingly.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

Vibha

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)V. JUDGE