Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Bhushan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18253
1 MCRC-21078-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 22nd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21078 of 2024
BHARAT BHUSHAN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Singh Tomar - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Choubey - Govt.Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent/State.
Shri Kapil Sharma - Advocate for Objector.
ORDER
This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C (482 of BNSS) has
been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.39/2024 of Police Station- Kohefiza, District- Bhopal (MP) for
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
& 34 of IPC, has knocked the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory
bail.
3 . Prosecution story, in brief, is that applicant and co-accused
attempted to sell one diamond for Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on the basis of forged
IGI certificate, whereas price of diamond was approximately Rs. 70,00,000/-
and by playing fraud and deception, applicant received Rs. 97,00,000/- from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 23-04-2025
11:07:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18253
2 MCRC-21078-2024
complainant and did not return the same to complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset submits that there
are no criminal antecedents of present applicant. There are only omnibus and
general allegation against present applicant. It is also urged that co-accused
Giriraj Prasad Gupta has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated
10.09.2024 in MCRC No.23501/2024 (Giriraj Prasad Gupta Vs. State of
M.P.). It is also urged that Giriraj Prasad Gupta was tenant of applicant and
no transaction has taken place between complainant and applicant. It is also
urged that Giriraj Prasad Gupta made compliant against complianant
(Annexure A/2) on 28.11.2023 under Section 420/34 of IPC. Rent agreement
was executed between Giriraj Prasad Gupta and applicant’s wife (Annexure
A/3). It is also urged that relevant dates pertaining to instant case has been
mentioned from page Nos. 5 to 8 of bail petition. It is also urged that with
respect to incident dated 23.01.2023, FIR has been lodged on 21.01.2024
under Section 420/34 of IPC on the basis of written report dated 17.12.2023,
it is also urged that without any investigation FIR has been registered. It is
also urged that FIR has not been registered under Section 467, 468, 471 &
120-B of IPC. Later on without any basis or new material, aforesaid sections
have been added in the case.
5 . Further after referring to complainant Rabin’s statement recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is urged that Giriraj Prasad Gupta had given
a cheque of Rs.76,00,000/- to complainant and it got dishonored. It is also
urged that if applicant had taken any amount from complainant, then, he
might have also given some cheque for payment of the same. There is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 23-04-2025
11:07:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18253
3 MCRC-21078-2024
dispute of amount of Rs.97,00,000/- between complainant and Giriraj Prasad
Gupta. It is a civil/commercial transaction which has been given color of
criminal offence. with respect to above learned counsel for the applicant
relied upon Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 88 ACrC 241 and
Chevron INC. Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, 2025: MPHC- JBP :13246 .
With respect of above, learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to
statements of Ananya Sharma, Amit and Surendra Mohan recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. In the instant case, there is dispute with respect to the
price of the diamond. Complainant did not pay any money to applicant.
Further after referring to Ananya’s statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C., it is urged that Ananya had given diamond to Giriraj Prasad Gupta.
Further whatsapp chats are of 2023 and FIR has been lodged in the year
2024.
6 . Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that in the instant
case, investigation is not complete but under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., no
proceedings have been undertaken and applicant has not been declared
absconding. It is also urged that, though proceeding for declaring applicant
absconding, are pending, still application for anticipatory bail is
maintainable. With respect to above, learned counsel for the applicant relied
upon Deepankar Vishwas Vs. State of M.P. in MCRC No.25252 of 2022
dated 27.02.2025 and Asha Dubey Vs. The State of M.P. , Criminal Appeal
No. 4564 of 2023(SLP(CRL.) No.13123/2024. On above grounds, it is urged
that applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as Counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 23-04-2025
11:07:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18253
4 MCRC-21078-2024
Objector submit that in Giriraj Prasad Gupta’s memorandum, it is clearly
mentioned that diamond is with present applicant and the money received
from complainant, has been spent by both present applicant as well
as Giriraj Prasad Gupta. It is also urged that co-accused Giriraj Prasad Gupta
has been released on regular bail by this Court having regard to the period of
custody i.e that Giriraj Prasad Gupta was in jail for more than six months. It
is urged that IGI Institute has clearly informed investigating Officer that the
certificate sent to them, has not be issued by IGI. Therefore, offence under
Sections 467 and 468 of IPC stands clearly made out in the instant case. It is
also urged that MOU dated 22.01.2023 wherein name of present applicant is
clearly mentioned and aforesaid MOU has been executed between
complainant and co-accused Giriraj Prasad Gupta and present applicant.
Therein, it is mentioned that diamond has been sold by both applicant as well
as co-accused Giriraj Prasad Gupta. Further, in whatsapp chats also name of
present applicant has been clearly mentioned. After referring to annexures
D/2 and D/3 , it is submitted that proceedings under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C.
are pending against present applicant and he is absconding since last one and
half years and he is not cooperating in the investigation. First complaint was
made on 27.01.2023. It is urged that Ananya has lodged a report
against Giriraj Prasad Gupta and Bharat Bhushan Yadav for taking away the
diamond from him. Hence, applicant is not entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail.
8. This Court has examined, submissions of learned counsel for both
the parties in light of documents available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 23-04-2025
11:07:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18253
5 MCRC-21078-2024
9. Perusal of record of the case reveal that charge sheet has been filed
against co-accused Giriraj Prasad Gupta while keeping investigation open
against present applicant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Charge sheet has
been filed on 17.07.2024.
10. Admittedly, proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were also
initiated against present applicant. Though despite that application for
anticipatory bail is maintainable.
11. Having regard to facts mentioned in the FIR/written report,
whatsapp chats available on record and MOU dated 22.01.2023 and other
evidence on record, prima facie, it cannot be said that applicant has been
falsely implicated and prima facie, there is no evidence against present
applicant.
12. Hence, having regard to nature of evidence available on record at
this stage with respect to applicant’s involvement in the instant offence, no
case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
13. Accordingly, application filed by the applicant is hereby
dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SARSWATI
MEHRA
Signing time: 23-04-2025
11:07:09
[ad_1]
Source link