Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dineshram Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MCRC-113-2022
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 113 of 2022
(DINESHRAM KEWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 07-01-2022
Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General fr the
respondent-State.
This is first bail application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.57/2021 registered at Police Station Sironj, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 420, 272 and 273 of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant Dineshram Kewat that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence, rather for commission of same act, present applicant has already been convicted and a fine of Rs.15,000/- has already been imposed upon him by the concerning authority. The fine amount has already been deposited and receipt of the same is annexed along with this bail application. It is further submitted that once the applicant has already been convicted and punished, then the registration of present FIR is violation of rights of present applicant and barred under Section 300 of CrPC. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant or prays to issue directions in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application and has submitted that present applicant is the owner of the hotel from where adulterated mawa has been recovered. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of offence, prayed for rejection of anticipatory bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record.
2 MCRC-113-2022 Considering the nature and gravity of offence which affects the society at large, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Hence, present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
ALOK KUMAR (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
2022.01.07
15:29:32 +05'30'
JUDGE
11.0.8
AKS