KAMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2021-5-10
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: INDORE)
Decided on May 24,2021

KAMAL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SUJOY PAUL, J. - (1.) This is the first application filed by the applicant / accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.59/2021 registered at Police Station - Pipliamandi, District - Mandsaur for the offences registered under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is son of Thakur Prasad, who has been granted anticipatory bail in M.Cr.C. No.13694/2021 decided on 01.04.2021 (Annexure-P/7). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per Section 221 of the Contract Act, the applicant being an agent had a lien on principal's property. If he retains the property for want of payment from co-operative Society, it does not constitute any offence whatsoever. It is further argued that at best the dispute between the parties is contractual / civil in nature. The respondent has entire incriminating material with him. The applicant cannot flee from justice. Applicant was made to sign an affidavit under pressure / coercion on 07.12.2020. Even as per this affidavit (Annexure-A/3), the amount quantified and required to be paid was Rs.3,32,69,788/-. Thereafter, the Vipnan Sangh itself passed an order dated 23.01.2021 and adjusted the aforesaid amount shown in the affidavit. However, it is mentioned that after adjustment, the applicant is still required to pay Rs.1,31,27,157.88. Shri Pancholi submits that there is no break up, calculation on the basis of which this magic figure is arrived at. The applicant will co-operate with the investigation and will not tamper with evidence or material. Hence, he may granted anticipatory bail because extra judicial confession has no evidentiary value.
(3.) The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State by contending that (i) investigation is going on which will show whether officers of Vipnan Sangh were also involved in the transaction (ii) Section 221 of the Contract Act permits the agent to retain the material with him but does not permit him to distribute the material to unauthorized person.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.