Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Pathak vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2020
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
M.Cr.C. No.18997/2020
(Sumit Pathak & Anr. Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated:23.06.2020
Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rohit Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the complainant. With consent heard finally through video-conferencing. This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicants, who apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.24/2020, registered at Police Station Aswar, District Bhind, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 329, 294, 506, 147 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that false case has been registered against them and they are apprehending their arrest on the basis of offence registered above. According to learned counsel for the applicants, police has wrongly included Section 329 of IPC for imputing the applicants whereas; as per allegations, case should have been of Section 325 of IPC. It is further submitted that the word 'Valuable Security' mentioned in Section 329 of IPC is not applicable in the present case because Section 30 of IPC defines 'Valuable Security' and as per definition of 'Valuable Security', applicants have not asked the complainant any 'Valuable Security'. Applicants only asked for some chewing tobacco (xqV[kk) of a particular brand. This HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.18997/2020 does not constitute 'Valuable Security'. It is further submitted that applicants do not bear any criminal record and mere reference of the fact that they wielded terror and influence in the locality, does not amount to the fact that applicants are of tainted background. Only fracture has been received by the complainant and that does not constitute offence under Section 329 of IPC. Thus, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicants and submitted that the incident is of dated 05-05-2020 when Lock-down was going on and complainant sustained injuries through fists and lathi blow. He received fracture over his ulna bone of left hand and five injuries more. Complainant runs a grocery shop. As per Kaifiat report, applicants wielded terror and influence in the locality. Thus, prayed for dismissal of bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer made by the applicants on the ground that the complainant is 58 years old small time merchant and he has been beaten up badly by the applicants just on the pretext that he was not providing them chewing tobacco (xqV[kk). It is further submitted that due to Lock- down he did not have provisions properly in the shop, therefore, he was unable to provide such thing to the applicants. Thus, prayed for rejection of bail application.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.18997/2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties and case diary perused. So far as the point raised by the applicants regarding Section 329 of IPC is concerned, it does not hold ground because of provision of Section 329 of IPC which reads as under:
"329. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal act.--Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer any property or valuable security, or of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in such sufferer to do anything that is illegal or which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
From perusal of aforesaid provision, prima facie it appears that the aforesaid provision includes the word 'property' also and it does not confine to Valuable Security. Besides that, applicants were trying to compel the complainant to do an illegal act which is otherwise prohibited by the concerned Collector and Ministry of Home Affairs because of Lock-down going on due to COVID -19 pandemic, therefore, if applicants compelled the complainant to provide chewing tobacco (xqV[kk) then it would have amounted to providing an article which is otherwise prohibited at that point of time by the administration. Therefore, arguments of the applicants regarding HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C. No.18997/2020 Section 329 of IPC is misplaced and therefore, rejected.
Complainant sustained fracture in his left hand (ulna bone) and is 58 years old man who was running a small time grocery shop to earn his livelihood. Any shop trader cannot be subjected to such cruelty just for the sake of certain provision from him which is not available in the shop.
Considering the overall fact situation of the case, custodial interrogation is required. Looking to their conduct, it is imperative that they shall go behind the bar. Resultantly, the bail application sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Anil* Judge
ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
CHAURASI st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068
b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc
YA
7df50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2020.06.24 07:25:15 -07'00'