SUDHIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of MCrC Nos.1258/2015, 1260/2015 and 4309/2015; whereby, the applicant seeks bail being arrested for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code, Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 3(Gha), 1 and 2/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Manayata Prapt Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937, in Crime Nos.17/2013, 18/2013 and 20/2013. In Crime No.17/2013, the applicant was arrested on 6.11.2014 whereas in Crime No.18/2013, he was arrested on 25.07.2014 and in Crime No.20/2013, on 17.02.2015. Charge-sheets in these cases are respectively filed on 20.12.2014, 13.10.2014 and 23.05.2015.

(2.) Taking cue from the submissions by the counsel for the STF during course of hearing of bail applications in M.Cr.C. No.19371/2014 and M.Cr.C. No.19373/2014 recorded in paragraph 24 of order passed on 18.12.2014 wherein while opposing the bail applications, the prosecution had placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Vinod Bhandari v. State of M. P., 2014 4 MPHT 103 decided on 11.8.2014 involved in the commission of similar offences and as to role of the applicant somewhat similar to the role of said Dr. Vinod Bhandari, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that Dr. Vinod Bhandari having been released on bail by order passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1291-1292/2015 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8433- 8434/2015) arising out of (Crl. M. P. No.15383-15384/2015) on 1.10.2015, Applicant be also now enlarged on bail.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that since as per prosecution the case of the applicant is similar to that of Dr. Vinod Bhandari, the applicant is entitled for the same benefit as admitted to Dr. Vinod Bhandari. It is also contended that the investigation in all the three crimes viz. Crime No.17/2013, 18/2013 and 20/2013 having been complete and the charge sheets having been filed in the Court and no further custodial interrogation is required. And, that the applicant is on default bail in Crime No.4/2015, the applicant cannot be made to languish in jail. It is further contended that the rejection of bail application in past including the anticipatory bail application as also the regular bail during pendency of investigation be not taken as precedent and the rejection thereof will not prejudice the cause of the applicant for consideration of regular bail after the charge-sheets are filed in respective crimes.