Harish vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Anil Verma, J

Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.637/2022 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 408, 409, 34 IPC. He is in jail since 06.8.2022. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merit.

As per prosecution story, complainant Rishi Rai owner of M/s. Mahakal Liquor Contractor made a written complaint at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore by stating that Mukesh, Mikky, Rishi, Vishal Rahul, Raj Kumar, Hanslal and others are salesmen in the shops. Mahakal Group has taken liquor contract for a sum of Rs.410 crore which was daily operated and handled by Mukesh Jaiswal. The said group consisted of 35 foreign liquor shops and 59 country-made liquor shops and it is the duty of salesman to record the daily sale figure and to deposit the same in head office. Co-accused Raj Kumar is data entry operator. On 04.02.2022 Pramod Shukla informed about the irregularities in stock and embezzlement of money by operators and salesmen, then complainant got the software checked by expert engineer Sandeep Dwivedi and it has been gathered that present applicant and other co-accused persons embezzled an amount of Rs.6,28,81,277/- from these twenty shops. The applicant was salesman of one of the liquor shop. Police has recovered a sum of Rs. 1.38 lakhs from the possession of applicant. Accordingly, offence has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. There is no evidence available on record against the present applicant regarding the aforesaid offence. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. Name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, he is only a salesman in the shop in question. The complainant has pleaded no objection if bail is granted to applicant. He has deposited Rs. 96,700/-. Applicant is permanent resident of Dhar district and is the sole bread earner of his family. Co-accused Raj Kumar, Hanslaal, and Vineet have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 20.4.2023 and 12.4.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 10163/2023, 14941/2023 and 16328/2023 in similar circumstances. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that applicant has deposited the amount of Rs. 96,700/- and he has no objection if bail is granted to the present applicant.

Perused the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the case diary. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also taking note of the fact that investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed; allegation levelled against the present applicant for embezzlement of Rs.96,700/-, which has been deposited by the present applicant; complainant has also admitted the same fact and has pleaded no objection if bail is given to the present applicant; applicant is not having any criminal past; co-accused Hanslaal, Vineet and Rajkumar have been enlarged on bail by this Court in similar circumstances, although the first bail application of applicant was dismissed on merit but in view of the above material changes, I deem it proper to release the present applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.