Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2012
M.Cr.C. No. 8605/2012 7.8.2012
Shri P.S. Gaharwar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Chandrakant Mishra, G.A. for the State. Heard finally.
This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.479/2012 registered at Police Station Waidhan for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 327, 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal past. Except an offence under Section 327 of IPC, all other offences are bailable and are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished, therefore he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case along with the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in subSection (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharshtra and others", (AIR 2011 SC 312), it is directed that this order shall remain in force till the end of the trial, if the applicant furnishes the bail bond and surety bond before the Court below at the time of filing of challan as per the terms and conditions as mentioned above.
However, it is made clear that due to nonappearance of the applicant if the concerned Court issues a warrant of arrest in future, against the applicant, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective relating to that applicant.
C.C. as per rules.
(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE ravi