Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ballu @ Balram Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-39094-2019
(BALLU @ BALRAM DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 30/09/2019
Shri Pramod Gohadkar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Case diary perused.
This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.195/2019, registered at Police Station Pohari, District Shivpuri (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 294, 506, 147 and 148 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not committed any offence in any manner. The allegation against the present applicant is of inflicting injuries by axe on the non vital part of body. It is argued that a cross case bearing Crime No.191/2019 was registered by the complainant party and the applicant has also sustained injuries. It is further submitted that incident has taken place on 23.7.2019 and the FIR has been lodged after two days of the incident, without their being any explanation for the delay. It is further alleged that there are no grievous injuries to the complainant by the act of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-39094-2019 (BALLU @ BALRAM DHAKAD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) co-accused have already extended benefit of bail, therefore, he claimed parity and has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a named FIR and the applicant has actively participated in the commission of offence. He has further submitted that it is an application the U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. and the co-accused has granted the benefit of bail u/S.439 of Cr.P.C., therefore, it cannot be claimed parity in pursuance to the aforesaid order. The applicant alongwith other co-accused inflicted injuries to the complainant. As per the medical report, the injuries are grievous in nature, therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
Considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, and also considering the fact that the applicant has been actively participated in commission of offence. Therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. The applicant is directed to surrender and cooperate in the investigation.
(Vishal Mishra)
vpn Judge
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2019.10.03 10:07:26
+05'30'