Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-1070-2018
(MAHESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-01-2018
Shri Rakesh Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Naveen Singh Thakur,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Sharma, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
sh Heard.
This is third anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant e ad under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Crime No. 156/2017 registered at Police Pr Station Khajuraho, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 53-1 (2) of M.P. Gond Khanij a hy Adhiniyam and Section 3/181, 130/177, 146/196, 66/192, 56/192 and 115/190 of Motor Vehicles Act. First bail application of the applicant was ad dismissed on merit and second was dismissed as withdrawn.
M Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated on the memorandum statement of co-
of accused persons. On the relevant date the said truck owned by the rt applicant was given on lease to Jai Ambey Construction Company for ou transportation of mining and he has no knowledge regarding illegal transportation of the sand. His truck was permitted for transportation of C mining. There is no criminal antecedents of the applicant. There is no h ig necessity of custodial interrogation. He is a reputated person of locality. He is a permanent resident of district Chhatarpur and there is no H likelihood of his absconding and tempering with evidence. He further submits that applicant has been released on anticipatory bail in other two cases of same nature registered on the same date and accordingly he is entitled for bail on the basis of parity. He is ready to furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for anticipatory bail.
Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.
I have gone thourgh the record. First bail application has been dismissed after considering whole points of the case. No new fact has been raised on behalf of the applicant, so far as the question of parity is concerned, applicant has been released in other case and accordingly principle of parity is not applicable in this case and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, role of the applicant in the incident and also looking to the observation of this Court in previsous order that granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would adversely affect the investigation, I am not inclined to accept this third bail application and enlarge the applicant-Mahesh on anticipatory bail.
sh Accordingly, application of the applicant filed under Section 438 of the e Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
ad
Pr (H.P. SINGH)
a
JUDGE
hy
ad
M
S /-
of
SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
2018.01.12 11:29:24
+05'30'
rt
ou
C
h
ig
H