1 [CASE NUMBER] The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh [CASE NUMBER] (RUPESH SHIRODE Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 07-08-2019 Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for the applicant. Shri [ENTITY], Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is Second bail application under [SECTION] [ACT] Applicant [ENTITY] was arrested on 21/1/2018 in [CASE NUMBER] registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]
First bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2018 passed in [CASE NUMBER].
As per prosecution story, on 18/1/2018 complainant [ENTITY] lodged a written report at P.S. Crime Branch Bhopal averring that he and his brother [ENTITY] run businesses in the name of Verma Travels which is a partnership firm. They needed place/land for the office of his firm near Kushabhau Thakre Bus Terminal, Bhopal. The applicant [ENTITY] and his father co-accused [ENTITY] told to the complainant that BDA is going to allot plot no.41 situated at ISBT to applicant [ENTITY]. They would get it allotted directly in the name of the complainant and on this pretext took Rs. 90 lac from the complainant and gave forged document to the complainant regarding allotment of that plot and thus cheated the complainant. On that, police registered [CASE NUMBER] at Police Station Crime Branch, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] against the applicant and co-accused and arrested the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. He further submits that the applicant took Rs.10 lac loan from the complainant M/s Verma Travels. They also executed an agreement in this regard and later because the applicant could not repay that amount the complainant lodged a false report against the applicant. He is in custody since 21/1/2018. The charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant cheated the complainant and took Rs.90 lac 2 [CASE NUMBER] from the complainant, so he should not be released on bail.
Earlier first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2018 passed in [CASE NUMBER]. Since then, there is no change in the circumstances except custody period and only on the ground that the applicant is in custody since 21.01.2018 and the trial is still pending, the applicant is not entitled to get the bail.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and various other judgments."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that other Crime nos. 02/18 and 15/18 for the offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] are also registered against the applicant regarding cheating with the other persons in the same fashion, this Court is not inclined to grant him bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE (ra)