Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/52921/2023 of SHAKIR RAIEN @ MOHAMMAD SHAKIR @ SAIF Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52921 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHAKIR RAIEN @ MOHAMMAD SHAKIR @ SAIF S/OABDUL WAHID, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AUTO DRIVER R/O MADINA NAGAR 285 HAJI GALIMADINA MAZHID DISTT.INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI MANISH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA DISTT.INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THERESPONDENT/STATE.SHRI DHARMENDRA CHELAWAT - ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission 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 bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant ofregular bail in connection with crime No.533/2019 dated : not mentioned,registered at P.S. - Lasudiya, District - Indore for offences punishable underSections 419, 420, 448, 467, 468, 384, 120-B, 201, 471 of IPC.
2. As per prosecution case, 17 flats belonging to M/s Horizon ProjectPrivate Limited have been sold by forging the signature of Nikhil Kothari,Director of Horizon Project Private Limited. Against the present applicant the allegation is that he also purchased one flat apart from those 17 flats bynotarized sale deed.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that main accused Mohd. Ali hasbeen granted bail by the Apex Court by order dated 30/10/2023 in SLP (Cri.)No.12812/2023. The case of the applicant is on better footing than the saidaccused. It is further argued that the Apex Court has granted the bailconsidering the custodial period.
4. Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail on theground that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature.They have filed photocopy of the so called sale deed and the stamp paperswere issued in the name of the present applicant. The statement of stampvendor Deepak Mishra/PW - 10 has been recorded and in his statement he hassaid, upon verification from the record, that the said stamp was issued in favourof one Anil s/o Hariram Chaudhary in the sale deed. He further stated that theink has been removed and the name of the applicant has been mentioned in thesaid stamp paper. The said stamp paper was never issued in the name of thepresent applicant. Thus, the applicant is beneficiary and has purchased the flatin pursuant to a notarized sale deed. It is also argued that after the dismissal ofbail of main accused Mohd. Ali, this court rejected the bail application ofaccused Jitendra and Nijammudin vide order dated 19/12/2023 & 12/12/2023passed in M.Cr.C No.51936/2023 & M.Cr.C No.52504/2023 considering theserious allegations. A report of hand writing expert has also been filed to showthat the signature of Nikhil Kothari has been forged.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the factthat the applicant is beneficiary of a notarized sale deed alleged to be executedby Nikhil Kothari which has been found to be forged and further the stamp paper has been got issued in favour of the present applicant which has beenfound to be forged as per the statement of stamp vendor/ PW 10. Theapplication is filed mainly on the ground of custody and the argument of thecounsel for the applicant that the matter is of civil nature cannot be accepted inview of the serious allegations of preparation of forged document and cheating.The bail to accused Mohd. Ali was granted by the Apex Court prior torecording of statement of stamp vendor/PW-10 Thus, considering the seriousallegations of forgery and cheating, I do not find any case for grant of bail.
6. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
7. However, considering the custodial period the applicant, it is observedthat the Trial Court shall make all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously,as far as possible within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of the order.
Cc as per rules.
PK
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE