Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadhesh Singh Tomar vs The State Of M.P. on 21 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5943 of 2022
Between:-
1. AWADHESH SINGH TOMAR S/O K.S. TOMAR ,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
SERVICE R/O HOUSE NO 1128 NEW HOUSING
COLONY MORENA DISTRICT MORENA PRESENT
R/OABHINAV ENCLAVE BABAI RAOD
HOSHANGABAD (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DINESH S/O RAMPRATAP , AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE WARD
NO 10, GANESHPURA LAHAR, DISTRICT-BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HEMANT KUMAR SINGH S/O JAGMOHAN SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
SERVICE S.H. F 300, NCL COLONY, JHINGORADH,
DISTRICT-SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UMA SHANKAR TIWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. DEHAT
DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YOGENDRA DAS YADAV, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is applicant's first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are privately employed by the contractor. A false case registering case crime no. 136/2021 is registered at Police Station Dehat, District Hoshangabad (M.P) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 365 and 34 of I.P.C.
The applicants' contention is that initially Section 365 was not mentioned Signature SAN Not when F.I.R. was lodged, therefore, notices were issued under Section 41-A of the Verified Digitally signed by Code of Criminal Procedure and applicants were cooperating with the police VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.02.21 18:46:38 IST 2 authorities in carrying out investigation.
It is submitted that later on, at the time of filing of chargesheet, Section 365 was added which is not made out from the narrations made in the complaint.
It is further submitted that complainant Vipin Singh Bhadoriya was working for R.K.C.T. company at Hoshangabad on Sukhtawa check post. On 27/02/2021, at about 11 P.M., when he was sleeping in the company's office, then he was approached by Hemant Pahadi Negi, Sunil Kewat, Dinesh Rajawat and Awadhesh Tomar. It is further submitted that since 365 is added subsequently and because the offence under Section 365 as per M.P. Amendment of 2008 is triable by the Sessions Judge, if applicant appears before the concerned court, then he may be taken into custody and on the basis of such apprehension, this application for anticipatory bail is filed.
Learned Government Advocate in his turn submits that Section 365 is not added subsequently. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. which was lodged on 01/03/2021. In the M.L.C. carried out on 1/03/2021, two swellings were found on the body of the complainant. His statements were promptly recorded on 01/03/2021 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after filing of the chargesheet, as applicants have to appear before the concerned court for committal, he has filed this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
The fact of the matter is that notices were issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and applicants have not yet been arrested.
The applicants have remedy in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5191/2021 decided on 7.10.2021.
Therefore, it is directed that he may surrender before the learned Sessions Court who will process his application for grant of bail in terms of the law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).
In above terms, the application is disposed of.
At this stage, Shri Anoop Singh, T.I. of Police Station Dehat, District Hoshangabad appears & submits that the applicants have wrongly mentioned the description of Police Station as Babai in place of Dehat as a result of which the 3 case diary could not be sent in time. He also submits that for the mistake of the applicants' counsel in incorrectly mentioning the description of police station, inconvenience has been caused to the Police Officer.
The aforesaid explanation of the Police Officer is accepted.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy