Mithun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Anil Verma, J

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No. 748/2021 registered at Police Station Bhanwarkunwa District Indore (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 292(C) of MP. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

As per prosecution story, complainant Prabhudayal Mukati, Patwari, Tehsil Office Juni Indore, Indore submitted a written complaint before the Police Station Bhawarkunwa stating that partners of M/s. Ganesh Enterprises namely Mithun, Mahesh and Dinesh have sold the plots situated at land bearing survey No.395/1, Village Pipliyarao and present applicant Lalu and co-accused persons namely Anita, Sanjay, Moolchand and other persons have illegally purchased the plots in colony developed by M/s. Ganesh Enterprises through its partners who executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the applicant and above co-accused persons in respect of plot bearing survey No.395/1 situated at Pipliyarao, which is registered in the name of Shri Gutkeshwar Mahadeo Temple and with an intention to cause huge loss to the government. They prepared forged and fabricated registration documents for the purpose of said land. 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. He is in custody since 3.12.2021. Co-accused Moolchand and Arvind have been enlarged on bail on 10.4.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex court in SLP (Criminal) No. 2811-2812/2023. Co-accused Radheshym and Lalu have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 20.6.2022 and 18.11.2022 by this court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 25232/2022 and 52630/2022 in similar circumstances, co-accused Mahesh has been granted interim relief against his arrest and co-accused Anandpuri has been enlarged on bail by the order of trial court in similar circumstances. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicant has executed sale deed in question, he is one of the main accused hence he does not deserve for bail.

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 co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the order of Hon'ble Apex court and except applicant rest of co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, the case of present applicant is similar to that of co-accused person Anandpuri and other co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail, investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, applicant is suffering jail incarceration since last one year and seven months, and final conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing 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 all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.