Sanjay @ Vishal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary consideration for granting bail was the fact that the first FIR was lodged by the applicant's wife against the complainant party in Jodhpur, and the second FIR was lodged by the complainant against the applicant in Indore. The Court noted the applicant's custody period of over five months and the likely delay in the final conclusion of the trial. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it inclined to release the applicant on bail based on the circumstances, particularly the sequence of FIRs. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, with conditions for regular appearance during the trial and adherence to Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. The bail order was made effective until the end of the trial, subject to compliance with conditions.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by the applicant, Sanjay @ Vishal, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is in custody since February 1, 2024, in relation to Crime No. 14/2024, registered at Police Station Sarafa, District Indore, for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. He contended that the current FIR was lodged by the complainant party to defend themselves against an earlier FIR lodged by the applicant's wife in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, for offences including kidnapping and extortion. The applicant's counsel also raised doubts about the authenticity of GST invoices submitted, stating they were not signed by the applicant and the GST numbers were not verified. The complainant and the State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered in Indore (Crime No. 14/2024) is a counter-blast to the FIR registered in Jodhpur (Crime No. 30/2024), and therefore, the Indore FIR should be considered as a second FIR, invalidating it? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of FIR registration and counter-blasts). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the Indore FIR was lodged solely to defend against the earlier FIR filed by the applicant's wife in Jodhpur. The applicant's wife's FIR was lodged first, making the Indore FIR a subsequent and potentially invalid filing. Relied on the sequence of FIRs and the alleged motive of self-defense. Revenue/State: Opposed the prayer for bail. The complainant's counsel fairly submitted that no document was available on record regarding the complaint filed on December 30, 2023, which led to the FIR on February 1, 2024. The State also opposed the prayer.