Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhopuri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2018
1 MCRC-34352-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-34352-2018
(MADHOPURI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Indore, Dated : 29-08-2018
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Heard. Case diary perused.
This is a first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest connection with Crime No.42/2018, registered at Police Station- Malawar, District- Rajgarh for commission of the offences punishable under Section 3 / 5 Explosive act 1884 and under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
As per prosecution case, on 11.2.2018 at around 11.40 hours the police received a secret information from an informant that one person going with one red colour motor cycle towards Seelkheda road with explosive substances. Thereafter they reached on the spot and saw one person coming on a motorcycle. The police party stopped him and asked his name and he stated his name as Babulal. Thereafter, police arrested him.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a licence holder of explosive substance and he is authorized to supply the explosive substance to the concerned. However, the applicant has not sold any explosive substance to accused Babulal and except the disclosure statement of accused Babulal recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, nothing is on record to implicate the applicant with the present crime. He further submitted that the statement made by accused Babulal is not admissible in evidence. There is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the evidence and the applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation. He further submits that co-accused Dhansingh has already granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.10733/2018. Under these circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of anticipatory bail application.
Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 30/08/2018 12:33:33 2 MCRC-34352-2018 the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents produced by the applicant but without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
This order shall in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, move an application for regular bail before the competent court.
The bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is come for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation specifically with involvement of the applicant in the present crime be considered by the concerned court, who shall consider the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE Praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 30/08/2018 12:33:33