Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anjani Kumar Tiwari @ Sajjan Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2010
MCRC No.5368/2010
30.7.2010
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the
applicant.
Smt. Sushila Paliwal, Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.11230/2010, an application for urgent hearing.
Since the case diary is available, the application is allowed.
Also heard both the parties.
Case diary of Crime No.248/2009 registered at Police Station Majhouli District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is perused.
Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Police Station Majhouli has registered the Crime No.248/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for the death of one Devendra Tiwari. On investigation, it was found that some of the accused persons had committed the aforesaid crime and the police has filed the challan against the culprits showing one Akhilesh @ Vijay to be absconding. In the original challan, there was no name of the present applicant mentioned as an accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after arrest of Akhilesh @ Vijay, the police has again submitted a supplementary challan showing the applicant to be absconding. He has further submitted that if the applicant was present at the time of incident along with other co- accused persons, then what was the reason the other co-accused persons did not mention his name in the interrogation. He further submits that one Suryakant Tripathi @ Kutkut was in custody with the accused Akhilesh @ Vijay, who instigated to tell the name of the present applicant and ultimately he told the name of the applicant in his memo under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further submits that the name of the applicant is maliciously inducted in the case without any basis. He further submits that the present applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality and he has no criminal past, therefore he prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application mainly on the ground that the matter is grave and, therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the present applicant.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Consequently, this application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Anjani Kumar Tiwari @ Sajjan Tiwari shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 30 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari.