Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakarsh Alis Golu Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 2nd OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36871 of 2022
Between:-
1. AAKARSH ALIS GOLU BUNDELA S/O LATE SHRI
GYANENDRA SINGH BUNDELA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT TAAL DARWAZA TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AAKASH SINGH S/O SHRI YADVENDRA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O TAAL
DARWAZA, TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SUYASH MOHAN
GURU, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
KOTWALI TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(SHRI MANISH DATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI S.K.SHARMA,
ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.607/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Tikamgarh District Tikamgarh, for the offence Signature Not Verified SAN punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 188, 506, 326, 307 of IPC and Section 123(1)(A)(B) of Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950.
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.08.06 16:54:30 IST 2As per the prosecution case, on 13/07/2022 a written complaint was made by the complainant namely Yashraj Giri, brother of the sitting MLA, Tikamgarh alleging that Ansh Bundela and Shashwat Singh Bundela had a fight with the complainant with regard to issue of booth capturing at polling booth of Ward No.1 Tikamgarh District Tikamgarh and in the said fight the complainant sustained injuries and offence was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 188 and 506 of IPC and Section 123(1)(A)(B) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. Later on, because of some political pressure offence under Section 326 and 307 of IPC have also been added.
Counsel for applicants submits that initially when altercation took place between the workers of two political parties, no FIR was registered, but after visiting the area by Ex-Chief Minister of BJP namely Ms Uma Bharti, FIR was registered. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the video recording of actual marpeet took place between the parties and submits that not only the complainant party but applicant party also sustained injuries. He further submits that several complaints were made by the applicants to various authorities and also to the District Returning Officer, so as to take cognizance of the fact that the workers of ruling party at the instance of local MLA are creating hurdle in conduct of smooth election, but nothing has been done. He further submits that even police authorities have not registered FIR as present applicants belong to congress party. However, at the instance of brother of local MLA, a false case has been registered against the applicants. He submits that as per the MLC report, the injuries sustained by the complainant are not of so grievous in nature, therefore, no case under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC is made out against the applicants. He submits that from the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, it is clear that the Signature Not Verified SAN applicants have not caused any injuries for which offence under Section 326 and 307 of IPC can be registered against them. The injured has also stated in his statement that Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.08.06 16:54:30 IST present applicants have assaulted him with the help of iron rod, whereas there was no 3 injury found over his body of the iron rod. He has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 2011 (1) SCC 694, (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), in which the Supreme Court has observed that power of Section 438 of Cr.P.C is not mandate to be exercised in exceptional or rare cases, but power of Section 438 of Cr.P.C has to be exercised in the cases where there being some doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution and the accused is entitled for grant of bail. He tried to establish that the present case is a fit case in which benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C can be granted to the applicants. He further submits that applicant no.2 is a practicing Advocate and drawn attention of this Court towards the photographs, wherein in one of the photograph, the injured was seen in normal condition and no injuries were reflecting over his body but on the other photograph his body was covered with the bandages just to show that he sustained injuries.
Per contra, counsel for State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicants stating that applicants have actively participated in the crime, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Counsel for objector has also supported the stand taken by counsel for State and submitted that looking to the injuries and the manner in which crime has been committed, the present applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and exhaustive submissions made by counsel for parties, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the same is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon their furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) each with Signature Not Verified SAN one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.08.06 16:54:30 IST 4This order shall remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants:-
1. The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;
2. The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicants will not indulge themselves 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 applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused;
5. The applicants will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicants will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.08.06 16:54:30 IST