Harikant Bhardwaj vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is second bail application filed by applicant Harikant Bhardwaj under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., who has been arrested on 31.07.2017 in

connection with Crime No.239/2017 registered at Police Station Omti, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419,

120-B, 34 of IPC.

Earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 05/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.24270/2017.

As per prosecution case, on 29.07.2017 complainant Karan Kohli lodged a report at Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur averring that he is a dealer

of bikes of Yamaha Company and runs the business in the name of M/s. Tilak Raj Motors. On 02/01/17, co-accused Dinesh Ankar met him and

introduced himself as CBI Inspector and told that up to the end of year 2017, CBI has to supply 1200 vehicles to the various persons who worked for

the department and applicant Harikant Bhardwaj and co-accused Shakti Singh & Dinesh Ankar purchased 135 Two Wheelers worth of Rs.

97,42,913 on credit and in lieu of that amount they gave three cheques of amount Rs 20 lakhs, 25 lakhs and 25 lakhs respectively. But said cheques

were dishonored. Applicant and co-accused also took money from many persons on the pretext that they would get bikes available to them on low

prices and did not pay that money to motorcycle dealer. Thus, applicant in connivance with other accused persons cheated the complainant and other

persons also.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. Although, earlier bail

application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 05/04/2018, but thereafter the trial is still pending. There is no

evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. The applicant is in custody since 31.07.2017 and the conclusion of the trial will take

considerable time. It is furthersubmitted that the mother of the applicant has expired on 13/07/2018. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel

prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court passed in the cases of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and also the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in

M.Cr.C.Nos.1418/2016, 6015/2016, 10688/2016 & 16749/2016 decided on 08/03/2016, 18/04/2016, 19/07/2016 & 15/11/2016 respectively (in all the

cases party name is same i.e. Pappu @ Ravindra Sharma Vs. State of M.P.).

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the prayer stating that sufficient evidence is

available against the applicant to connect him with the crime, applicant not only cheated the complainant but also cheated the many other persons

from whom they took money on the pretext of getting them bikes available on low price and did not pay that money to motorcycle dealer.

Another similar crime is also registered against the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits and since then there

is no change in circumstance. So he should not be released on bail. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in

LT. COL.Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State Of Maharashtra, (2018)11 SCC 458in which Hon’ble Apex Court held“in successive bail

application-The Court has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one in the earlier applicationsâ€​.

Earlier bail application filed by the application was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 05/04/2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.20503/2017

and since then there is no change in circumstances except custody period and only on the ground that applicant is in custody since 31.07.2017 and

the trial is still pending, the applicant is not entitled to get the bail.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be

granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.

The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) has already been dealt with and distinguished by

this Court while deciding the first bail application filed by the applicant. In other cases (supra) coordinate bench of this Court granted bail to the

accused looking to the facts and circumstances of theses cases and did not lay down any guideline regarding granting bail in the cases like present

case. So the above mentioned judgements do not help applicant much.Â

From the evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation prima facie it appears that the applicant not only cheated the complainant, but

also cheated many other persons of public from whom he took money for delivery of vehicles.

From the evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation prima facie it appears that the applicant not only cheated the complainant, but

also many other persons of public from whom he took money for delivery of vehicles. Other similar crime is also registered against the applicant. So

looking to the allegations and the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation, this Court is not

inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Further, only on the ground that the mother of applicant has expired on 13/07/2018, this Court is not inclined to grant permanent bail to the applicant.

However, applicant is at liberty to file temporary bail application in this regard. Applicant is also at liberty to file temporary bail application on the

ground before trial court.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.