Deewan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2022

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deewan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 June, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                 BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
                           ON THE 30th OF JUNE, 2022

       MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 25044 of 2022

          Between:-
          DEEWAN SINGH S/O RAMDAYAL LODHI , AGED
          ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPING
          11 ADITYA NAGAR OPPOSITE CHURCH MORAR
          DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....PETITIONER
          (BY SHRI R.K. SHARMA- LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE
          ALONGWITH MS. BHAVYA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

          AND

1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
          POLICE STATION PS MORAR DISTRICT
          GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.        THE STATE OF MP THR. STATION HOUSE
          OFFICER C.B.I. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
          (BY SHRI PRABHAKANT SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR THE CBI AND
          SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA- ADVOCATE FOR THE
          COMPLAINANT )

      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:
                                       ORDER

Heard on IA No. 8186/2022, an application under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant and his associate is permitted to assist the prosecution.

The applicant has filed this second application under Section 438 of 2 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

T h e applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.258/2020 registered at Police Station Morar District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of the IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Deewan Singh that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant is innocent. Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn at the very outset. Allegation against the applicant is of committing Reiki /conspiracy in this offence but there is no evidence against the applicant. Rather the evidence recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C which reflects that there is no any involvement of the present applicant in the incident. It is further submitted that applicant is suffering from multiple disease and knee joints of applicant have been replaced and he is aged around 63 years. It is further submitted that only presence has been shown at the time of incident of the applicant but considering no involvement, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned CBI counsel and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the application and have submitted that statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C of Digvijay Singh and Vishram only be considered for supporting the evidence, they have not been shown as eye witnesses. They reached at the place of incident after the incident. It is further submitted that during cross of recording evidence with regard to case of Deshraj, the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated against the applicant and have also stated regarding involvement of the present applicant, therefore, offence registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of the IPC and 3 therefore, the presence itself reflects conspiracy as well as Reiki of present applicant. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence alongwith the alleged conspiracy, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary as well as documents available on record.

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as facts and circumstances of the case that there was no overtact on the part of present applicant. Rather, he reached at the spot after the incident which also reflects from the case diary, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond o f Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

3 . The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

This anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in above terms. E-copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information. Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Prachi PRACHI MISHRA 2022.07.01 10:46:13 +05'30'

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court