Sadik vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble S. Ravindra Bhat, Hon'ble Dipankar Datta
Stage:
BAIL MATTERS
Remarks:
Disposed off
Listed On:
20 Mar 2023
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
19314/2023,19316/2023,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1286/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-11-2022 in MCRC No. 52117/2022 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore)
SADIK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 19316/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 19314/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 20-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Akbar Siddique, AOR Mr. Rajneesh Chuni, Adv. Mr. Animesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Hasan Zaidi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. M.fareed Siddiqui, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, D.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The petitioner is accused of committing various offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 and other offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that he Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.03.20 17:22:55 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
entered into an agreement to sell immovable property with the complainant and later refused to register the sale deed despite accepting valuable consideration. It is also alleged that he forged certain documents in this regard.
The agreement in the present case was entered into on 09.03.2016. The First Information Report, however, was lodged on 16.07.2022. The civil suit too appears to be pending between the parties over the disputed property on the ground that the petitioner mis-represented to the complainant with respect to title.
Having regard to the totality of this circumstance and the fact that till date, the I.O. has not called the petitioner for inquiry, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail subject to his co-operating with the investigation. The petitioner is hence directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may impose.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
All pending applications are disposed of.
(NEETA SAPRA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
2