Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4434/2024 of RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4434 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI RAM NARAYANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS R/O L -7 2 ND FLOOR RAJORI GARDEN(DELHI)
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION KOHEFIZA DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANASMANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
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 Regular Bail application. It is listed before this Court,because, this Court had earlier rejected anticipatory bail application as was filedby the other co-accused persons.
Applicant Ravindra Pratap Singh is in custody since 20.01.2024 inconnection with case Crime No. 305/2023 registered at Police Station Kohefiza,Distt. Bhopal (M.P.), for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B ofIPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and he has been arrayed as an accusedlater on, on the basis of memorandum of other co-accused persons. It issubmitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 in thematter of Shushil Singh Vs. State of M.P. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)Nos. 13522-13523/2023)], had extended the benefit of interim order passed on19.10.2023, on the ground that petitioner was cooperating with the investigation.
Similarly, attention is drawn to the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in caseof Sanjeev Kumar Mehta wherein similar orders were passed and benefit ofinterim orders were extended in favour of the petitioner therein on the ground ofco-operation with the investigation.
In the present case, facts are different. Petitioner was since not co-operating and was absconding, he has been recently arrested in the matter ofCase Crime No. 305/2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC on20.01.2024.
Since, charge-sheet is not filed that means investigation is yet notcomplete. Secondly, Shri Manasmani Verma, learned Government Advocatesubmits that co-accused Raj Mohammad is yet not arrested and is absconding.
Thus, taking these facts into consideration, that case of the presentapplicant Ravndra Pratap Singh is different from the other co-accused namelyShushil Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Mehta, in as much as Supreme Court foundthem to be co-operating with the investigation, whereas the present applicantwas absconding and another co-accused is still absconding, parity cannot beextended in favour of the petitioner, accordingly, his request for grant of bail ishereby rejected.
Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE