PAWAN KUMAR AJMERA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard with the aid of case diary.

(2.) Petitioner Pawan Kumar Ajmera has filed all these three petitions for granting bail in the same crime numbers i.e., Crime Nos.1424/2019, 1432/2019 & 02/2020 of Police Station--Lasudia, Indore in which this Court has granted bail to the co-accused Yogita Ajmera, who is his daughter- in-law. At the outset, the petitioner has claimed parity with her (Yogita Ajmera). Advance age, ailment and period of custody have also been taken as other grounds to press the bail. Shri Garg reiterated almost all other contentions relied on at the time of pursuing Yogita's bail. The opposition has contested all the grounds and has prayed for dismissal of all the petitions. It would be apt to go through the order passed in Yogita's case first, which is being reproduced here:

(3.) Shri Nair, who appeared for the objector, took quite long to explain or to justify the delay in taking action against the company. Sum and substance of the contention is that since even after purchase of the plot they did not get the possession, they were raising their grievance at all available forums. They also approached the High Court, filed several Writ Petitions, faced Writ appeals, approached the police, lodged complaints etc., but every time the company successfully manipulated things and escaped the dragnet. They all had also approached the police in the year 2016, but the police projected only four persons as complainants and made rest of the aggrieved persons witnesses of the case assuring that their grievance will also be redress in the same case, but the company cleverly won over those four complainants, compromised the case with them and left the objectors hanging in the balance. Their second attempt was also foiled by the company in the same fashion. Their problem still persists. It is further submitted that the sale agreements/deeds of the objectors were executed during the period when the petitioner was one of the director of the company. Yogita had made several financial transactions in the account of the company, which were not available at the time of arguments on her bail application. The company has sold the plots in excess than the land it actually had in its name. It (company) sold the plots assuring the development of the colony, but never did so. After collecting the money, they moved out swiftly and introduced dummy directors. Therefore, the petitioner be not granted bail.