Dr. Vivek Chakravarti vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

I.A. No.5627/2021, an application for urgent hearing and I.A. No.5952/2021, an application under Section 301(2) of CrPC, are taken up, considered

and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, learned counsel and his associates are permitted to appear on behalf of the complainant to assist the State counsel.

The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 17/01/2021 by Police Station Crime

Branch, Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.15/2021 registered for offence under Sections 420, 384, 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Dr. Vivek Chakravarti that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been

implicated in this case. Applicant is in custody since 17/01/2021, i.e. for more than a month. It is further submitted that the present applicant is a

Doctor and he is in a business of blood bank. He is a reputed citizen and lots of bank transactions have been done by him which shows financial

condition of the present applicant, therefore such type of offence could not be committed by the applicant. It is further submitted that the FIR is

delayed and there is no explanation on record with regard to delayed FIR. It is also submitted that no recovery has been made from the applicant

despite custody of 40 days. No any ingredients of Section 384 of IPC is made out as there is no threat on the part of the present applicant. No case

under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Applicant is ready to abide by any condition which may

be imposed by this Court. Hence, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant. He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and

conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures

in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the applicant have vehemently opposed the application and have submitted that offence is

registered under Sections 420, 384, 34 of IPC, wherein present applicant is directly involved. It is further submitted that the matter relates to Plasma

collection which was done during COVID-19 pandemic and present applicant is owner of the blood bank, therefore it cannot be said that such type of

offence could not be done by the present applicant. Hence, prayed to reject this application filed for grant of bail to the applicant.

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is in custody since around last 40 days, despite nothing has been recovered

from the possession of the applicant, therefore, no case is made out under Section 420 and 384 of IPC. There is no any MLC of complainant which

shows that any injury is caused. Hence, again prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.

The case is registered under Sections 420, 384, 34 of IPC against the present applicant and as per prosecution story, there is commission of cheating

of huge amount along with offence under Section 384 of IPC. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and looking to the

gravity of offence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Consequently, this application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant stands rejected.

Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.