Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2019
1 MCRC No.2311/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC No.2311/2019
(Dinesh and others Vs. State of M.P.)
INDORE dt. 25-01-2019
Mr Aapoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr Sudharshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents
State on advance notice.
Both the parties heard.
This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime Number 244/2017 registered at Police Station Kalyanpura, Jhabua for an offence punishable under Section 436, 427, 297,147, 148 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this court that on 01-09-2017 at about 11:00 PM ten to fifteen persons after reaching the house of the complainant Kamma have assaulted him and has also placed the house on fire. It has been stated that no one was named in the FIR and later on the names of the present applicants were added by the police. He has also stated that other co-accused person has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 20-02-2018 passed in MCRC No. 5939/2018 (Balu Vs. State of M.P) and the same reads as under :-
"Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamal Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent State.
This application u/S. 439 of the Code of 2 MCRC No.2311/2019 Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Balu who is in custody since 1/11/2017 in connection with Crime No.244/2017 registered at P.S. Kalyanpura, Distt. Jhabua for commission of offence punishable u/S. 436, 427, 297, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the present applicant along with other persons has set ablaze the house belonging to the complainant and in those circumstances a criminal case has been registered. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that only five persons were named in the FIR and later on, based upon the statement before the Police, the applicant has also been involved in the crime in question. He has been implicated after a period of one month and nine days.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has read out the statements available in the case diary. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Though learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that the name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR, however, his contention is that later on in the statement of the witnesses, name of the applicant finds place.
This Court has carefully gone through the statement available in the case diary and is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed. Applicant Balu is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.1.00 lac (Rs. One lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.
Certified Copy, as per Rules."3 MCRC No.2311/2019
Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. His contention is that the statement of witnesses recorded by the police reveals the involvement of the present applicant and the question of grant of anticipatory bail does not arise. He has read out the statement available in the case diary.
On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants by the arresting officer, they shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to abiding the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall be valid for a period of thirty days, from today. In the meanwhile, the applicant may apply for regular bail, within the aforesaid period of thirty days before the competent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE Rashmi Digitally signed by Rashmi Prasahant Date: 2019.01.25 18:14:05 +05'30'