Sandeep Khare vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the present applicant, who is in custody since 26.3.2018 in connection with Crime

No.204/2018 registered at Police Station Habibganj, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 of IPC.

The applicant herein is a tax consultant as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, although counsel for the applicant has not bothered to

mention the same in the cause title of the application.

The case of the present applicant is that he procured a loan of Rs.79 lakhs from one Housing Finance Company, Bhopal after mortgaging the

properties. The applicant also gave a proposal to complainant Pankaj Shukla that if he gives Rs.50 lakhs, then he would invest the same properly so

that he can get the maximum tax benefit and hence also obtained a cheque dated 15.9.2015 of Rs.35 lakhs drawn on Central Bank of India, Bhopal.

He also obtained a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in cash but apparently the aforesaid amount was not invested by the applicant in purchasing the real estate

properties as promised by him and despite demand the aforesaid amount was not returned and still the complainant was abused by the present

applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a false FIR has been lodged against the applicant by suppressing the material fact that applicant

Sandeep Khare, complainant Pankaj Shukla and one other Jitendra Kumar Tiwari had entered into a deed of partnership executed on 28.5.2015 for

the business of Civil Construction Trading of Building Material and all other related work in the name and style of M/s R.K. Construction. In the

aforesaid partnership firm the share of complainant Pankaj Shukla was 50%, whereas the share of applicant Sandeep Khare was 25% and one

Jitendra Kumar Tiwari had also 25%. It is further submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.35 lakhs was received by the applicant for investment on

behalf of the partnership only, but subsequently when the aforesaid amount was not invested, the same was also returned to the complainant, which is

also demonstrated from then entry of the bank account of M/s R.K.Construction partnership firm in which on 25.7.2016 an amount of Rs.35 lakhs has

also been credited in the account of the firm. It is further submitted that the applicant belongs to a reputed family and he is languishing in jail since

26.3.2018 and the charge sheet has already been filed in the present case. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on

bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector has opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted that a false statement is made by the

learned counsel for the applicant that the amount has been deposited. It is further submitted that it is true that the amount was deposited, but on the

next day itself the same was also withdrawn by him, which is also apparent from the entry of the bank account of R.K.Construction. Learned counsel

for the objector has fairly admitted that in the FIR he has not mentioned the fact regarding the partnership of the applicant, complainant Pankaj Shukla

and Jitendra Kumar Tiwari, as the same was not relevant.

Learned counsel for the objector has further submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender, as earlier two cases have also been lodged against him,

which is apparent from the FIR dated 27.3.2018 at Crime No.217/2018 registered at Police Station Habibganj and FIR dated 22.3.2016 at Crime

No.224/2016 registered at Police Station Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal on the same allegation. Learned counsel for the objector has further

submitted that the amount of Rs.15 lakhs which was received by the applicant is also witnessed by other two witnesses.

In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that so far as allegation of withdrawal of Rs.35 lakhs is concerned, the aforesaid amount

was withdrawn from the account of the firm in which the applicant was not sole authorized signatory. It is further submitted that so far as two FIRs

are concerned, those have also been lodged by the witnesses, who are witnessed to the cash transaction of Rs.15 lakhs. Thus it is submitted that the

aforesaid FIRs have been lodged against him in conspiracy with each other. It is further submitted that in one case, the applicant was enlarged on bail

by the learned trial Court.

Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the bail application and has reiterated the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the objector.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case diary as also the documents filed along with the application, this Court finds

force with the contention made by the applicant and is of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served in keeping the applicant in jail, as the

applicant is in custody since 26.3.2018 and the charge sheet has already been filed, and thus without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

the application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicant Sandeep Khare be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in

sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial

Court on the dates given by the Court.

The applicant shall further abide by the following conditions:-

The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation

against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

With the aforesaid, the present application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby disposed.

Certified copy as per rules.