Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Paroha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2015
MCRC-8667-2015
(SUNIL KUMAR PAROHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
16-06-2015
Shri Rajnish Jain, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Bramhadatt Singh, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent-State.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.126/2015 registered at Police Station Vijayragavgarh District Katni for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 342, 294, 323, 506-B, 190, 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them. Except of offence under Section 384 of IPC, the remaining offences are bailable. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of two days. It is alleged that the applicants were demanding the amount of loan given to the complainant. Such demand does not fall within the purview of extortion. It is also apparent that nothing was paid by the complainant on demand to the applicant. Prima facie no offence under Section 384 of IPC is made out against the applicants. The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants for bailable offences. Under such circumstances, they pray for bail of anticipatory nature.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature. Consequently, their application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicants namely Sunil Kumar Paroha and Sushil @ Raja shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).
The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who, shall consider his application under Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE