High CourtsSingle Bench

Avinash S/O Prakash Tank vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 MP CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Rusia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 385, 386, 420 · Prize Chits And Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 — Section 3, 4, 5 · Madhya Pradesh Protection Of Debtors Act, 1937 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32930 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 392 words

Vivek Rusia, J

This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.205/2021 registered at police station Industrial Area

Ratlam for the offence punishable under section 384, 385, 386, 34, 420, 120-B IPC and u/s 3,4,5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schmes

(Banning) Act & u/s ¾ of the M.P Protection of Debtors Act.

As per prosecution story, complainant - Gagan lodged the complaint on 25.3.2021 alleging that he took the loan of Rs. One Lakh from Deepu Taank in

the month of March, 2019 and he has returned Rs.95,000/- and for the remaining amount he has given the blank cheque to him and despite that

present applicant who is working in the office of Deepu Taank along with other co-accused are threatening him for extortion of money.

Accordingly,the police has registered the case against the applicants for the offences, stated aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The investigation is complete and challan has

been filed. No further custodial interrogation is required. He is in custody since 26.3.2021 and the dispute is purely a money transaction and the same

has unnecessarily been given the colour of criminal case. A compromise has been arrived at between the parties, hence prays for grant of bail to the

applicant.

On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate opposes the prayer and prayed for rejection of the application. However, the learned counsel appearing

for the complainant submits that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the dispute has been settled.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to

enlarge the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before that Court during

the pendency of the trial.

Before releasing the applicant from custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine him to rule out the possibility of COVID-19 infections

and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020