IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Mahendra Pratap Singh Bhadouria – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20865 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, considering his age and the lack of overt act on his part in the alleged offence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. The applicant, aged around 77 years, claimed innocence and stated that he had executed a power of attorney for the sale of a plot in 2012, and the false FIR was lodged in 2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application, directing the release of the applicant on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, considering the applicant's age and without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the age of the applicant and the lack of overt act on his part in the alleged offence, and granted anticipatory bail based on these factors.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to compliance with specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.145/2022 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Mahendra Pratap Singh Bhadouriya that the applicant has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. applicant is aged around 77 years. He has executed one power of attorney in the name of Virendra Singh Sikarwar to sale out the plot in the year 2012. Thereafter, continuously the complainant of this case was in possession of said plot and in the year 2022, false FIR has been lodged. There is no overt act on the part of the present applicant. It is also submitted that there was no any earlier complaint was made against the applicant with regard to commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC. Trial will take its own time. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts of the case along with age of the applicant, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions and has submitted that the offence is registered against the applicant under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, wherein applicant has sold out the land which neither in his possession nor in existence. Hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case diary as well as documents available on record.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties along with the fact that the applicant is aged around 77 years, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
This anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in above terms.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.
Certified copy as per rules/directions.
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on factors such as the age of the applicant and the lack of overt act in the alleged offence.
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused.
Grant of anticipatory bail based on the absence of material against the applicant and imposition of specific conditions for the grant of bail.
The court considered the lack of evidence supporting the serious nature of the alleged injuries and the finding that the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC were not made out against the applicant ....
The court's decision was influenced by the timing of the incident, the filing of the FIR, and the applicant's willingness to cooperate in the investigation in granting anticipatory bail.
The court may grant anticipatory bail in the interest of justice, considering the arguments of the parties and the circumstances of the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.