Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2015
MCRC-14716-2015
(RAJ KUMAR SAHU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
04-11-2015
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Deponents Manwati and Ram Kumar, who are the complainant and the injured respectively, are present in person for verification of their affidavits which the applicant has annexed with his bail plea. They are duly identified by the applicant's counsel. Their presence are marked.
Both the deponents have verified to have given the affidavits without threat, coercion and inducements. They have stated in their affidavits that at the time of alleged incident, applicant Raj Kumar was not present.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 392/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sidhi against him, his father/co-accused Chhotelal and his brothers/co-accused persons namely Ramesh and Arvind for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 and later added 307 of the IPC.
Prosecution allegations are that on 26.07.2015 at about 7.00 am in village Rampur, the applicant and the co-accused persons hurled filthy abuses at complainant Manwati and committed marpeet with her. Her husband Ram Kumar came to her rescue. Thereupon, he was also beaten-up by co-accused Chotelal with a stick. The cause of incident is family disputes. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Chhotelal is the father of injured Ram Kumar and the applicant and the remaining co-accused persons are his real brothers. It is also submitted by him that the complainant and injured Ram Kumar have stated in their affidavits that Raj Kumar was not present at the time of alleged incident. However, on account of family disputes the complainant has named him in the FIR. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is a permanent resident of village Rampur, District Sidhi and does not have any criminal antecedents. Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, the injury reports of the complainant and her husband Ram Kumar and the affidavits submitted by them, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant with certain conditions. Allowing his application, he is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case on or before 17.11.2015 for interrogation and submission of documentary proofs of his permanent residence and contact numbers, if any. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the aforesaid crime, he be released immediately on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to his satisfaction. Further, the applicant is directed to abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer on the stipulated period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-