High CourtsSingle Bench

Deepak S/O Ramkripal Hardiya vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 28 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 MP CK 0190

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Rusia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.31625 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

26 paragraphs · 504 words

Vivek Rusia, J

This is second application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.144/2020 registered at police station Bhawarkua, district Indore for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the IPC. First

bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to surrender before the Court by this Court vide its order dated 07/07/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.

No.16742/2020.

As per the prosecution story Amarjeet and Tejpal are registered owners of land bearing survey No.378/13, Rajpal Farm House Gram Pipliyarao,

Indore. They purchased the 3492 sq. ft. plot for Rs.17 lakhs from Deepak Hardia by way of registered sale deed. Thereafter they sold the aforesaid

land to Rajendra by way of agreement to sell. In turn Rajendra has executed two agreements to sell the said plot i.e. one in the name of Deepak (the

present applicant) and another in the name of Suman. Deepak has sold the land to Babita by way of registered sale deed. When Deepak could not

hand over the possession of the land to Babita she lodged an FIR against Deepak and Rajendra both.

Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Deepak and Babita are relatives and now a settlement has been arrived at between

them as Deepak has returned the entire sale consideration to Babita, therefore, she is not willing to pursue the complaint. He submits that co-accused

Rajendra has been released by this Court vide order dated 22/12/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.48756/2020.

In view of the above, on the ground of parity, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed only on the ground that a

compromise has been arrived at between the parties. If either parties withdraws from the compromise this bail order shall be treated as cancelled. A

copy of the said compromise be also filed in this bail application and kept on record within 7 days. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the

applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the following

conditions :-

(a) the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducment, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(c) If the applicant is found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of anticipatory bail

shall be liable to be cancelled; and

(d) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

C.C. as per rules