"Many Hypocrites Are Looting Money Of Innocent People In Name Of Religion": MP HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Priest’s Wife
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the priest’s wife stating that many hypocrites are looting the money of innocent people in the name of religion.
A Single Bench of Justice Anil Verma ordered –
“Now a days, such a harsh position is often seen in the society that many hypocrites are looting money of innocent people in the name of religion and they are cheating them and also destroying them. Such type of cheaters are stigma in the name of religion. The society should beware of such treacherous people. In view of the prima facie evidence available on record, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.”
Advocate Avinash Yadav appeared on behalf of the applicant while Government Advocate Vishal Sanothiya appeared for the non-applicant and Advocate Anirudh Saxena for the objector.
In this case, the applicant apprehended her arrest in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 386, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is the wife of a co-accused who performs worship as a priest. The complainant had entrusted some golden and silver ornaments to the priest for keeping in a safe manner. He along with the applicant mortgaged some ornaments and an agreement was executed by him but thereafter the applicant and other co-accused persons did not return the aforesaid jewellery and the amount to the complainant. They committed fraud with the complainant and therefore, the offence got registered.
The counsel for the applicant submitted before the Court that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this matter. It was also submitted that she never signed any document of bank loan and is only a witness in the promissory note. On the contrary, the counsel for the non-applicant opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection and the counsel for the objector also opposed the same.
The High Court after hearing contentions observed, “Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation it is revealed that although promissory note was executed by husband of present applicant but it is signed by applicant as a witness, it is also gathered that present applicant being a Gurumata and her husband being a religious priest misused their position and betrayed the complainant by breaching their trust and by grabbing the golden and silver ornaments and cash amount of complainant.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Cause Title- Lavina v. The State of M.P.