Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash Narayan Barodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C.No.5949/2020
(Kailash Narayan Barodiya Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior Bench:
Dated 10/02/2020
Shri Navnidhi Parharya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vikrant Sharma, learned PP for the respondent/State.
Heard the counsel for the parties and case diary perused. The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.438, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail application.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest on the basis of offence registered by Police Station Bairad, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No. 20/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of IPC.
As per the prosecution case complainant Ramniwas S/o Murarilal Dhakad in-charge Tahsildar, Tahsil Bairad filed a complaint with regard to manipulation in revenue records and illegal entries made therein in the name of one Pradeep Soni S/o Kalicharan Soni and Satish Yogi S/o Ramcharan Yogi. It was alleged in the complaint that without there being any order of any authority the said entries have been made and there is overwriting also over these entries.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against the applicant and applicant is apprehending his arrest on the basis of registration of case on Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 13/02/2020 10:06:02 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.5949/2020 (Kailash Narayan Barodiya Vs. State of M.P. ) false pretext. The aforesaid offence has been committed during the period of 1990 to 1994 and at that time applicant was not posted in record section of Revenue Department of Tahsil Bairad, District Shivpuri. At the time of commission of offence applicant was posted at Karera, District Shivpuri. Applicant as suffered Paralysis Attack, therefore, took voluntary retirement in year 2016 and has no nexus with the offence. Applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court if anticipatory bail is granted.
Learned counsel for the State on the basis of case diary opposed the bail application. It is submitted that applicant is absconding and investigation is yet to be completed. Applicant is required for investigation. On this ground he prayed for rejection of the bail application.
Heard.
From perusal of case diary and submissions, it appears that investigation is yet to be completed and for that purpose custodial interrogation of applicant is required because he was instrumental alongwith other co-accused to get the false and fabricated entries made in revenue records. Such practice cannot be countenanced in any manner, custodial interrogation is required. Further role of Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 13/02/2020 10:06:02 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C.No.5949/2020 (Kailash Narayan Barodiya Vs. State of M.P. ) applicant, whether he was involved or not in commission of offence, can only be ascertained during trial where he can prove his innocence. No fruitful ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the application preferred by the applicant is hereby dismissed. Applicant must make himself available for interrogation.
Application bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 13/02/2020 10:06:02