DEVENDRA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.

(2.) The applicant has filed this first application u/S 438, Cr.P.C . for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.109/2020 registered by Police Station University Distt. Gwalior in relation to the offences punishable under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC .

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that the incident has taken place in the year 2011 for which a complaint was made in the year 2012 by one Mahendra Gupta, who is a contractor in whose favour the contract was awarded. It is submitted that all the documents pertaining to the contract were in the name of Mahendra Gupta. The bills were submitted in the name of Mahendra Gupta and the cheque was issued in the name of Mahendra Gupta by the municipal corporation. It is submitted that there appears to be some dispute between the main contractor Mahendra Gupta and petty contractors Rajendra Senghar and Jitendra Jadon, which has resulted into filing of complaint by Mahendra Gupta. It is pointed out that on earlier occasion a criminal case was registered at Crime No.289/2016, however, no further steps were taken by the police authorities and now in the year 2020 the applicant, who is government servant are being unnecessarily harassed. There is no allegation regarding tender proceedings nor regarding work not being done by the contractor. The work was also found to be satisfactory. Thereafter, under the signatures of the commissioner the amount has been disbursed in the name of contractor Mahendra Gupta who subsequently has filed a complaint stating that he has never applied for the contract. But, the fact remains that all the documents submitted during the tender proceedings were in the name of Mahendra Gupta. Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court to the complaint and thereafter to the FIR and has argued that the complainant himself has mentioned that owing to some dispute with respect to payments with Rajendra Senghar and Jitendra Jadon the complaint has been made. It is argued that the applicant is Deputy Commissioner and after verification and approval from the commissioner the contract was was awarded in favour of Mahendra Gupta. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation and is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court while considering application for anticipatory bail. He is willing to deposit Rs.15,000/- in PM cares fund in this Covid-19 scenario pandemic. Under these circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail.