Santoshilal Rathore vs State of MP

They are heard. This is first application u/s 439 Cr.P.C.

Offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, section 3(1)(2)(4) of the MP Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, sections 45S/58B and 5-A of the RBI Act and Sections 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 have been registered against the applicant vide Crime No. 154/2011 at Police Station, University, Gwalior.

Charge sheet has been filed in the case. The allegation against the applicant is that the company KMJ Land Developers India Limited had received deposits from investors in contravention to the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2000 and RBI Act. The applicant was arrested on 28/2/2014.

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that as per charge sheet, ten persons made complaints that the company had received total deposits of Rs. 62,000/- from them. Subsequently, in statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C., these persons deposed that they had received back the money. Another co-accused namely Shrimati Mathura Bai had been granted bail, copy of order dated 22/1/2013 passed by this Court in MCRC 499/2013 has also been filed alongwith the application. Other co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail.

Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State opposed the bail application. He has submitted that other cases have also been registered against the applicant for other offences. Applicant is the owner of the company KMJ Land Developers and had been doing the business of receiving deposits in other States also. Hence, the applicant is not eligible to be enlarged on bail.

In the present case, charge sheet has been filed. In accordance with the charge sheet, certain persons deposed that they had deposited amounts in the company on the assurance that their money will be returned back with certain interest. Total amount in accordance with the charge sheet is 3-4 lacs. Witnesses have deposed that the company received deposits from them. Some of them have deposed that they had made monthly deposits and the company had no licence for the said purpose. The company did not submit any details in regard to the land purchased to any of the witnesses. As per the report submitted by the State, following cases have been registered against the applicant.

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State did not elaborate the fact whether the amount is much more than the amount mentioned in the charge sheet. It is also a fact that other co-accused persons have been granted bail in the same crime number. One of the offences registered against the applicant at Jabalpur in Crime No. 283/2011 by Police Station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur, the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session vide order dated 26/11/2011 passed in Case No. 2862/2011. In a similar matter, i.e. Crime No. 255/2011 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior where the amount is much more, accused persons have been granted bail.

Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, nature of the offences alleged, and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, the amount which is said to be received by the company and the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant that subsequent investors in their statements u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate deposed that they had received back the amount from the company, this bail application is allowed.

However, looking to the interest of the investors, it is directed that on applicant''s furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. five lacs in place of solvent surety and a personal bond in the sum of Rs. five lacs to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail. The amount of bank guarantee shall be kept as security, if there would be any claim against the company from the investors in regard to refund of deposits.

The applicant shall comply with all the conditions enumerated in section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Certified copy.