High CourtsSingle Bench

Manoj Kisan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 1 November 2019 · Citation: (2019) 11 MP CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A. Dharmadhikari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420, 467, 468, 469, 470
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 43892 Of 2019
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

13 paragraphs · 527 words

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 430/2019 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 of IPC.

Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant along with co-accused Rasal Singh Gurjar had sold a plot No. H-162 admeasuring area 108 Sq. meter for consideration of Rs. 9,60,000/-, for which, registered sale deed was also executed on 11/03/2016, but when the complainant approached Gwalior Development Authority for mutation, it came to the notice that the applicant alongwith co-accused have created forged and fabricated documents, on the basis of which, registered sale deed was executed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is a Secretary of Co-operative Society. It is submitted that during pendency of the case, complainant as well as applicant have entered into a compromise and the entire consideration amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- has been refunded to the complainant by the applicant and co-accused. It is further submitted that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has also been filed for quashing of an FIR on the basis of compromise which is pending consideration before this Court. The applicant is the permanent resident of District Gwalior and he is a reputed citizen of his locality. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tempering with the prosecution evidence, if he is released on anticipatory bail. Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two local solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1.

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6.

The applicant will not leave India without previouspermissionofthetrial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be. A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

C.c. as per rules.