Harish Krishnan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, Harish Krishnan, subject to certain conditions. The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since December 8, 2021, and that bail had been granted in most of the other FIRs registered against him, as well as to a co-accused. The Court also considered the submission by the objector regarding the Rs. 40 lacs received by the applicant. To address this, the Court imposed a condition that the applicant must deposit Rs. 20,00,000 in Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) before his release, with the trial court. The remaining Rs. 20,00,000 is to be deposited within three months after his release. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 40,000 with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, and to remain present during the trial, abiding by the conditions under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Harish Krishnan, who has been in custody since December 8, 2021. The applicant is accused of cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 417, and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and co-accused approached the complainant's firm for business, authorizing them to sell cement. An amount of Rs. 40,00,000 was transferred to the account of Shri Krishnan Ispat & Cement Private Limited. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the company was not registered as a cement manufacturer and no such company was registered under that name. The complainant alleged that the accused committed theft of GST and failed to file returns, having taken a deposit of Rs. 40,00,000 under false pretenses. The applicant's counsel highlighted that bail has been granted in three out of four FIRs against him and that a co-accused has also been granted bail by this court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given his period of custody and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has been in custody since December 8, 2021, and that bail has been granted in three out of four FIRs registered against him. Furthermore, a co-accused has already been granted bail by this court. The trial is a magistrate trial, and these factors warrant the grant of bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the bail application. The learned counsel for the objector submitted that the applicant received Rs. 40 lacs as a security amount by falsely representing himself as a manufacturer of a cement company, and therefore, this amount should be secured during the pendency of the trial.