Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Bhat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRDESH
BENCH AT INDORE
1
Mis. Cr. Case No.6276/2018 (Arun Bhat Vs. State of MP)
Indore, Dated: 21/03/2018
Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri Vishal Pawar, learned counsel for the objector. This is the first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., on behalf of the applicant, Arun Bhat. The applicant is in jail since 04/10/2017 in connection with crime No.543/2017 for the offence punishable under sections 457, 380 & 436/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahakal, District Ujjain.
As per prosecution case, FIR against unknown persons was lodged in respect of an incident dated 03/10/2017 inter alia alleging commission of theft and setting aside fire in the cloth shop. Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant.
During investigation in another case, the accused made a statement in his memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act that he entered into the cloth shop of the complainant for theft and while he was smoking fire has taken place.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence and he has no other criminal antecedents. Investigation is complete and challan has been filed. No further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant is a poor person and there is no earning member in the family. The applicant may be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions which this Court deems fit and proper.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application by supporting the order impugned and prays for its rejection. However, learned counsel for the objector/complainant make a statement of no objection, on instructions.
At this stage, learned Government Advocate submits that Shinapti panchnama the complainant has signed the articles seized from the shop and, therefore, it appears that the complainant was won over or he has lodged a false complaint. Hence, the complainant deserves to be dealt with as contemplated under the provisions of sections 182 and 211 Cr.P.C..
In the obtaining facts and circumstances, without commenting HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRDESH BENCH AT INDORE 2 Mis. Cr. Case No.6276/2018 (Arun Bhat Vs. State of MP) upon merits of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the application deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the application of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C., The respondent/State is always free to take recourse to law for appropriate proceedings against the complainant.
A copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.
(Rohit Arya)
b/- Judge
Digitally signed by M V R
BALAJI SARMA
Date: 2018.03.21 17:48:14
+05'30'