Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dinesh Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2017

                      M.Cr.C.No.18632/2017

Jabalpur, dated: 17.11.2017

        Shri Amit Kumar Vishwakarma, counsel for the petitioner.
        Sushri   Gulab   Kali   Patel,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the
respondent/State.

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Singh Chouhan in Crime No.590/2017 registered by Police Station Gorakhpur, District-Jabalpur under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the Sub Inspector of Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur Sushri Nirupama Pandey tried to arrest the petitioner in Crime No.276/2017 registered by Police Station Gorakhpur against the petitioner on 28.08.2017. At that time, the petitioner was coming along with his companion on a two wheeler; however, the petitioner pushed aside Constable Ramgopal, as a result, he fell down and the petitioner succeed in escaping from the Police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code is not constituted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been submitted that the case in which the petitioner was sought to be arrested i.e. Crime No.276/2017, the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 11.10.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16326/2017. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that there are as many as six cases other than the present one registered against the petitioner. In at least three of them, he is shown to be absconding. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be trusted with liberty and does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.

By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not absconding in any of the cases and the record filed by the State is not accurate, yet he has not filed any document to counter the record filed by the Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the criminal antecedents, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Dinesh Singh Chouhan, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge taj.