Aslam Kha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2017

M.Cr.C.No.19185/2017
Aslam Kha
Vs.
State of M.P.
Indore
14.11.2017

Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned GA for the respondent/State.

This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The
applicant is in Jail since 25.7.2017 in connection with Crime No.
284/2017 registered at Police Station Annapurna District Indore,
M.P. for the offence punishable under Section 406/34, 120(B), 109
IPC.

As per prosecution story, the applicant with his father Babu
Khan, were engaged for fixing tiles in the house of the complainant.
The work continued for one year. During this period, the applicant
developed intimacy with the daughter of the complainant. On
7.7.2017 the daughter of the complainant disappeared without
informing the parents. Thereafter the complainant found that about
Rs. 2 lacs cash and F.D. of Rs. 25,000/- was missing besides, there
were withdrawals through ATM.

According to the complainant, his daughter has taken away
the valuables in collusion with applicant and the father of the
applicant. The prosecution has apprehended applicant, the daughter
of the complainant and Babu Khan. With the passage of time, the
daughter of Babu Khan, have been enlarged on bail. The
investigation is complete, challan has been filed. Under such
circumstances, the case is registered against the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that to constitute
an offence under Section 406 IPC; a non-bailable offence the basic
ingredient is that of entrustment of the valuable upon the accused,
the same is missing in the instant case as on its own showing the
FIR reflects suspicion cast upon the applicant having colluded with
the daughter of the complainant in the matter of missing cash
amount and withdrawal of cash through ATM. As such, this could
have been, at the most, a case of theft simplicitor under Section 379
IPC and not under Section 406 IPC.

It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated. He has no criminal antecedents. It is further
contention of the applicant that in the investigation nothing in the
nature of the investment of the aforesaid missing valuables has been
found linking the applicant with the crime. Under the circumstances,
a prayer is made for enlargement on bail.

Per contra, Shri M.Parwal, learned GA opposes the bail
application supporting the impugned order but does not dispute
enlargement on bail of Shri Babu Khan, and the daughter of the
complainant.

Heard.

Having perused the impugned order, the case diary and the
contentions advanced by learned Counsels for the parties, in the
opinion of this Court, without commenting anything on the merits of
the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant
shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) only with separate sureties in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court to appear
before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court and
also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of
Cr.P.C.

CC as per rules.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
M.Jilla.

Maharukh jilla
2017.11.16 11:53:05
+05’30’

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *