Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kallu @ Hardev Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-7658-2018
(KALLU @ HARDEV YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-03-2018
Shri Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Sharma, learned Government Advocate for
respondent-State.
Heard.
sh This is first anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the e applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
ad The applicant is apprehending his arrest, in connection with Pr Crime No.663/17, registered at Police Station Prithvipur District Tikamgarh (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, a hy 353, 342, 332, 147, 148, 294, 506 of the IPC.
As per prosecution, on receiving call from one Mahendra Singh ad on police help line (100) number informing that in the public place, M some persons are creating nuisance at New Bus Stand Teharka Road Prithvipur, complainant Police Constable Nagendra Singh, who was of on duty at that time, reached at the spot and met the caller and inquired rt about his call and when he was inquiring, then co-accused Rasheed ou Khan abused him and assaulted him by axe on right side of his head with intention to kill him and then applicant Kallu Yadav assaulted C him by lathi on left side of his head and three other also beaten him h and all of them took him into a room of a house and closed the door ig and beaten him by kicks and fists. H Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that he was not present at the spot and he has not participated in the incident. He further submits that the caller of 100 number Mahendra Singh has given an affidavit, stating that applicant Kallu Yadav has not participated in the incident, he was not present, but one other Kallu Khan was present. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Per-contra, learned G.A. for the respondent-State submits that number of cases are pending against the applicant, his name as Kallu Yadav is mentioned as injured person. On the basis of above affidavit, it cannot be concluded that applicant was not present at the spot and had not beaten the complainant. On these grounds, he opposes the anticipatory bail application.
After hearing arguments of the parties, looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case and audacity of the applicant and other co-accused persons, in my considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to release the applicant- Kallu @ Hardev Yadav on sh anticipatory bail.
e Accordingly, this application of the applicant under Section 438 ad of the Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
Pr (H.P. SINGH)
a
JUDGE
hy
ad
M
Us
of
Digitally signed by
USHA SHARMA
rt
Date: 2018.03.26
23:33:56 -07'00'
ou
C
h
ig
H