Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2015
MCRC-19373-2015
(ASHOK KUMAR PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
26-11-2015
Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2015 of this Court, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the S.H.O., of the concerned police station has apprised that injured/complainant Ramesh Singh was not x-rayed. In this connection, he has submitted the report of SHO, which is taken on record.
Heard arguments.
Perused case diary and material on record.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 104/2015 registered at Police Station Kamjari, District Sidhi against him and co-accused namely Santosh, Ramlal and Mithailal for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 308, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, on 01.07.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., the applicant and the co-accused persons were consuming liquor in the applicant's shop situated in the village Dilhully. At that time complainant Ramesh Singh asked him whether liquor is sold by him? Thereupon, an altercation broke-out between the complainant on the one hand and the applicant and other co- accused on the other hand. Later, the applicant and the co- accused persons committed marpeet with him. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant is an employee of the country made liquor shop and at the behest of the owner of the shop, he lodged the false report against the applicant and the co-accused persons. It is also submitted by him that the complainant has sustained simple injuries, as he was not subjected to X-ray as advised by the treating doctor. It is also submitted by him that the applicant is a permanent resident of district Sidhi and does not have any criminal antecedents. Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and the perusal of the injury-report of the complainant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant with certain conditions. Allowing the application, he is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the case on or before 09.12.2015 for interrogation and submission of documentary proofs of his permanent residence and contact numbers, if any. The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicant in the aforesaid crime, he be released immediately on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to his satisfaction. Further, the applicant is directed to abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to appear before the Investigating Officer on the stipulated period, then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE