High CourtsSingle Bench

Ranveer Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 MP CK 0033

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Awasthi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 420, 467, 468
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 47682 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

5 paragraphs · 641 words

This first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his / her arrest in connection with Crime No.461/2019 registered at Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per prosecution case, on 10.07.2019 complainant Milind Shende s/o Dinkar Shende made a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Indore against Gurdeep s/o Gurveer Chawla and Ranveer Singh @ Rikky s/o Gurveer Chawla about obtaining house loan to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-and Car Loan to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- in his name on the basis of fabrication of documents, thereby he has been cheated. Therefore, on 15.10.2019 FIR has been registered at Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore against accused persons Gurdeep Singh Chawla s/o Gurveer Singh Chawla, Ranveer Singh @ Rikky s/o Gurveer Singh Chawla (present applicant), Rajkumar Meena, Bank Manager, Andhra Bank, Chhawni, Indore and Anand Yadav s/o Ram Singh Yadav for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime. There is no legal evidence available in the case diary to connect him with the present crime. It is further submitted that the present applicant has not taken any loan from Andhra Bank and said loan was obtained by Milind Shende s/o Dinkar Shende; and when he could not repay the loan amount, then the Bank started recovery proceedings against the applicant under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Bank moved an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Indore, which was registered as Case No.82/B-121/2019-20; and vide order dated 7th October, 2019, learned Additional District Magistrate, Indore has directed the Bank to take legal action against Milind Shende s/o Dinkar Shende for recovery of the loan amount. It is further submitted that Milind Shende s/o Dinkar Shende sent a notice to the Bank Manager, Andhra Bank, Indore in which he accepted that he has taken loan from the Bank; and he is ready to deposit the loan amount, which clearly shows that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation. There is no possibility of absconsion or tampering of the evidence if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application by contending that there are sufficient evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the present crime. It is further submitted that statement of Milind Shende s/o Dinkar Shende has been recorded by the Police on 15.10.2019 and 17.10.2019 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which he categorically stated that he has not obtained any loan amount from Andhra Bank and accused persons prepared false document (s) and taken loan from the Bank in his name. It is further submitted that earlier another criminal case has been registered against the applicant of the same nature. Under these circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available in the case diary against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.47682/2019 is hereby dismissed.