RAMBHAJAN DHAKAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this repeat bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 15/10/2019 by Police Station -Crime Branch, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No. 158/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 of IPC.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that earlier vide order dated 27/1/2020 bail application of applicant was heard and decided on merits but the facts were not correctly presented before the Court, therefore, applicant intends to present the fact in correct perspective, therefore, this application has been filed.

(3.) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the case in hand for reaching the allegations of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC refusal of applicant had to be present in the transaction to complainant which may convey that Soyabene bags were not intended to be returned to complainant, then only ingredient of Section 406 of IPC could have been imposed over the present applicant. Here no such refusal has ever been made by the applicant. In fact applicant submits that Soyabene bags are still lying in the warehouse M/s Harikrishan Radheshyam Pahadiya and complainant very cleverly did not disclose such facts. No verification was ever made by the police while vising the warehouse that bags are not available in the warehouse. Even otherwise, as per the statement of owner of warehouse recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he categorically mentioned the fact that his firm is closed since year 2016, therefore, it is highly improbable that transaction took place in year 2017 and year 2018. It is further submitted that even otherwise, bank statement of applicant nowhere discloses the fact that he received cheques amounting to Rs. 27 lacs in total ever from complainant Rakesh Singh Rajpoot. It is further submitted that complainant Rakesh Singh Rajpoot himself is an accused in several cases involving offence under Section 3 / 7 of Essential Commodities Act and in fact he is instrumental in ostracizing the applicant and other innocent farmers by his tactics.