Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sakha Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-15496-2018
(RAM SAKHA PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-05-2018
Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Sharma, learned Government Advocate for
respondent-State.
Heard.
sh This is repeat (second) anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. First anticipatory e ad bail application has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 05.04.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.12896/2018.
Pr The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with a Crime No.44/2018 registered at Police Station Sirmour, District Rewa hy (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 353-A, 294, 323 and ad 506-B of the I.P.C.
As per prosecution, complainant Ram Krishna Kol was posted M as Patwari of Patwari Halka Belwa Badgaiyan, who has also been in of charge of Patwari Halka Mauhariya. On the date of incident i.e. 12.03.2018, the complainant came to meet the Naib-Tahsildar and rt when he was showing the mutation register to the Naib-Tahsildar Ram ou Sajiwan Verma in his office, then at the same time, applicant came C there, started abusing him and committed marpeet and gave two slaps on his cheek, tore the mutation register and threatened him to dire h ig consequences. Thereafter, on the report of the complainant, case was H registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that custodial interrogation is not necessary. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. He further submits that application before the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Rewa has been submitted by the applicant a false report has been lodged by the complainant after tearing the mutation register with the help of Authority and prayed for making enquiry. The applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court. On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per-contra, learned Government Advocate opposes the anticipatory bail application by submitting that all points raised by the applicant have already been considered and the fact that there is no substantial change in the circumstances. On these circumstances, anticipatory bail should not be granted to the applicant.
I have gone through the case diary and evidence collected by the prosecution. Looking to the role ascribed to the applicant in the incident and the way of committing the offence with a public servant in the office of Naib-Tahsildar, who is also a public servant and sh looking to the fact that no new grounds have been raised by the e applicant, in my considered opinion, granting anticipatory bail to the ad applicant would adversely affect the investigation, therefore, I am not Pr inclined to enlarge the applicant- Ram Sakha Pathak on anticipatory bail.
a Accordingly, application of the applicant filed under Section 438 hy of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
ad (H.P. SINGH) M JUDGE of rt ou sp C Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2018.05.04 13:30:39 h +05'30' ig H