RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is further submitted that applicant is neither Director nor any stakeholder in the company directors of which are facing litigation for offence referred above. Even the statement of witnesses indicate that applicant had no direct role to play. His father Om Prakash Sharma as Director was instrumental in collection of money. Beside that complainant Raghuvir Berwa was a collection agent earlier but has filed this complaint just to wriggle out of implication but now other victims have filed case complaint against the complainant also. The applicant is in custody since 7/3/2020 and his confinement amounts to pretrial detention. Looking to the prevailing condition of COVID- 19, he seeks bail on sympathetic grounds also. He undertakes to cooperate in trial. He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing. Further looking to the situation of pandemic, he intends to perform the community service by serving the Nation by contributing his part by installing Arogya Setu App and contributing in Army Central Welfare Fund.

(2.) Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.