Pankaj Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Anil Verma, J

Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He is in jail since 8.2.2023 in connection with Crime No.30/22 registered at P.S. - Crime Branch, Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 170 and 34 of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, a complaint has been made by the complainant Yogesh Malviya before the Dy. Commissioner, Crime Branch, Indore alleging that co-accused Neelam Parashar impersonated herself as SDM and she told the complainant that she will provide service of guard at collectorate. When the complainant contacted her on mobile phone, she called him in the collectorate and told that if he will pay Rs.2 Lakh, then he will get government job as a Guard. Thereafter complainant has given an amount of Rs.2 Lakh to the co-accused Neelam Parashar on 8.1.2022 and gave him an appointment letter, ID card and dress of guard. Complainant received Rs.10,000/- as a salary for two months, but he did not get joining. Thereafter, he came to know that Neelam Parashar has committed fraud with him on the pretext of providing job to him. During the investigation, it has been gathered that present applicant who is running a kiosk MP Online hatched the conspiracy with the co-accused Neelam and he has transferred the different amount to the victim persons by showing that the amount was disbursed by the government agencies. Accordingly offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He is in custody since 8.2.2023. He is not named in the FIR. Investigation is over and supplementary charge sheet has been filed against him on 8.5.2023. He is a businessman and running a registered Kiosk MP Online. He is having shop establishment license. He is also a victim of the main accused, who has cheated him, therefore, he made a complaint against the main accused Neelam. There is absolutely nothing in the disclosure memo of the main accused Neelam. There is no legal evidence available on record against the present applicant to implicate him in the aforementioned offence. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time. Hence, he prays that applicant be released on bail.

Per-contra, learned GA for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that this court has rejected the bail application filed by the co-accused Amit and Aniruddha Parashar vide order dated 10.2.2023 and 10.5.2023 passed in MCRC No.1052/2023 and 14818/2023, therefore, applicant does not deserve for bail.

Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below.

Considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and the fact that present applicant is not the main accused but he was directly involved in the activities along with the co-accused Neelam. Applicant is running a Kiosk MP Online and from perusal of the different documents it appears that the applicant has transferred money in the different accounts by showing him as a government agency. Main accused Neelam has cheated as many as 49 persons by impersonation and obtaining huge money from them. Present applicant also appears to be responsible for his activities done by him by using his Kiosk. Present applicant without any valid authority used his kiosk for transaction showing that it was done by the government.

In view of the prima facie evidence available on record, without commenting upon merits of the case, at this stage this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly this M.Cr.C. is hereby dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.