The Madhya Pradesh High Court took on record the compliance report filed by the MP Police over action taken on the court order of October 3, 2024 relating to the action taken regarding the Directors and Managing Director of the Suvidha Land Developers India Pvt. Ltd, whom are at large.
“The respondents shall continue to take steps as per the directions of this Court against the Directors and Managing Director of the Company”, the court order said.
The compliance-affidavit, pursuant to order dated 03.10.2024, has been produced across the board. The same is taken on record, the court order said.
On perusal of the same (compliance affidavit), it is stated that corpus (the father of the petitioner) has already been released from the jail.
With regard to Directors and Managing Director of the Company, it is stated that they were not traceable. As a result of which, directions have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Bhopal wherein it has been directed that interrogation be done from the Company Secretary; a team be constituted to search out the absconding persons; proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC be done; enquiry may be done from the friends and relatives of
the absconding persons and an enquiry may also be done from the Auditor of the Company, the court order said.
Kusum Sahu a daughter of petitioner Jibrakhan Lal Sahu filed the habeas corpous petition after the court did not granted bail to her father an accused in Crime No.157/2021, registered at Police Station Bagsewania, Bhopal, MP for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of I.P.C., the petitioner counsel Amitabh Gupta submitted.
The FIR is registered against petitioner’s father on false allegations, as stated in the present petition, of having committed Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust and thus, misappropriation of Rs.1,98,000 of various investors while acting as Director of the Company, namely, Suvidha Land Developers India Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner’s counsel submitted.
The father of the petitioner is neither a Director in the aforesaid Company nor Managing Director nor has collected any money from any of the complainants, the petitioner’s counsel submitted.
As argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case is unique one and requires intervention of this Court to save the fundamental right of the citizens, as has been the case of father of the petitioner who has been in jail since 12.12.2023, which amounts to illegal detention of the father of petitioner, the court observed.
No doubt, against a bail Order, the higher Court can be approached. In the present case also, the petitioner could have approached the Supreme Court but a person who is having equity share of Rs.6,250/- only and belongs to a lower strata of the society, has no courage/finances to approach the Supreme Court by engaging a private counsel; and is facing mental agony of rejection of multiple bail applications on the false averments/allegations, as apparent on the fact of the record by the concerned Police Station. Therefore, we find that since the father of the petitioner is in illegal detention, it is a fit case to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this petition and pass orders, the court observed.
Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we hereby allow the present petition directing the concerned jail authorities to release the father of the petitioner forthwith subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the court ordered.
Before parting from this case, in the interest of justice and to save the interest of the investors, we hereby direct the concerned Police Station to interrogate the Directors and Managing Director of the Company as mentioned above which shall be personally supervised by the concerned
Superintendent of Police, the court order said.
