RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-02-02. RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4434 of 2024 BETWEEN:- RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O SHRI RAM NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O L -7 2 ND FLOOR RAJORI GARDEN (DELHI) ..... APPLICANT (BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE S TATION KOHEFIZA DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) ..... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MANASMANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ) This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This is first Regular Bail application. It is listed before this Court, because, this Court had earlier rejected anticipatory bail application as was filed by the other co-accused persons. Applicant Ravindra Pratap Singh is in custody since 20. 01. 2024 in connection with case Crime No. 305/2023 registered at Police Station Kohefiza, Distt. Bhopal (M. P.
), for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the name of the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH Signing time: 02-02-2024 18:21:19 applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and he has been arrayed as an accused later on, on the basis of memorandum of other co-accused persons. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20. 11. 2023 in the matter of Shushil Singh Vs. State of M. P. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. ) Nos. 13522-13523/2023)], had extended the benefit of interim order passed on 19. 10. 2023, on the ground that petitioner was cooperating with the investigation. Similarly, attention is drawn to the order dated 11. 12. 2023 passed in case o f Sanjeev Kumar Mehta wherein similar orders were passed and benefit of interim orders were extended in favour of the petitioner therein on the ground of co-operation with the investigation. In the present case, facts are different.
Petitioner was since not co-operating and was absconding, he has been recently arrested in the matter of Case Crime No. 305/2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC on 20. 01. 2024. Since, charge-sheet is not filed that means investigation is yet not complete. Secondly, Shri Manasmani Verma, learned Government Advocate submits that co-accused Raj Mohammad is yet not arrested and is absconding. Thus, taking these facts into consideration, that case of the present applicant Ravndra Pratap Singh is different from the other co-accused namely Shushil Singh and Sanjeev Kumar Mehta, in as much as Supreme Court found them to be co-operating with the investigation, whereas the present applicant was absconding and another co-accused is still absconding, parity cannot be extended in favour of the petitioner, accordingly, his request for grant of bail is hereby rejected. Accordingly, this first bail application is dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH Signing time: 02-02-2024 18:21:19 (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AR Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMITABH Signing time: 02-02-2024 18:21:19
Source: High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.