SOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.915/2016 registered at Police Station-Gang Betul, District- Betul (M.P.) for the offences under Ss. 294, 323, 342, 392, 364-A, 384, 450, 452, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants is that the complainant has not issued any cheque to the applicants and one other co-accused rather applicants came into the house of the complainant and one bag containing some documents snatched from the complainant's son and misused the cheques which is in the name of the complainant by making forged signature of complainant. The accused Sohan and Shailendra by way of forged and fabricated manner submitted two cheques of Rs.1,50,000.00 and 6,00,000/- in the bank by making forged signature of the complainant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. It is stated that the applicants went to the house of the complainant to take their money which was given to the complainant but the complainant failed to return money as prayed by the applicant Sohanlal by way of legal notice regarding dishonour of cheque and applicant has also lodged a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Sohanlal has also submitted a report before SP, Betul copy of which is filed as Annexure A/6. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Betul (M.P.), hence there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant are ready to co-SeAfaeUreNot operate with investigation and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court; hence, prays for anticipatory bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; (2018) 3 SCC 22.