Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramji Lal Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2016
1
M.Cr.C.No.308/2016 & 333/2016
M.Cr.C. No. 308/2016
Ramji Lal Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P.
and
M.Cr.C. No. 333/2016
Jagannath Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P.
12.01.2016
Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the
applicants.
Shri B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Case diary is not available.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that looking to the nature of the case, it may be considered with help of copy of the impugned order and order dated 04.08.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7656/2015 relating to co-accused Sultan.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the applications are connected with the same crime, therefore, decided by the present common order.
The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 138/2015 registered at Police 2 M.Cr.C.No.308/2016 & 333/2016 Station Vijaypur, District Sheopur for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of IPC (later added Sections 324, 325, 440 and 307/34 of IPC).
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality and they don't have any criminal past alleged against them. The applicant Ramji Lal Kushwaha is an old person of 60 years of age. It is not alleged against the applicants that they assaulted the victims but it is alleged that they held victim. Initially an offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered for the injuries caused to victim Banwari, however, medical board has opined that no fatal injury was caused to him. Lalpati and Banwari sustained fractures of left ulna and left knee respectively and, therefore, for their injuries, at the most offence under Section 325 of IPC may constitute. It is not alleged against the applicants that they had any weapon at the time of incident and, therefore, prima facie no offence under Section 452 of IPC is made out against the applicants. At the most offence under Section 451 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable. Nothing is to be 3 M.Cr.C.No.308/2016 & 333/2016 recovered from the applicants. Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants, whereas main accused Sultan has been released by the single Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7656/2015. Under these circumstances, applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature on the ground of parity.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the applications. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature. Consequently, the present applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicants, namely, Ramji Lal Kushwaha and Jagannath Kushwaha be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).
4M.Cr.C.No.308/2016 & 333/2016 The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider their application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.
C.C. as per rules.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi