IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Ambika Katare – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 20725 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2022
Anticipatory Bail - IPC - The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, considering the arguments advanced by the parties and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to comply with stringent conditions in the event of arrest.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving multiple sections of the IPC, relating to the suicide of a habitual offender who had fled from police custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for anticipatory bail without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the arguments of both parties and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the nature and gravity of the offence, as vehemently opposed by the State counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, and in the interest of justice, the applicant was allowed anticipatory bail with stringent conditions.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, and the applicant was directed to comply with stringent conditions in the event of arrest.
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.388/2017 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 306, 120-B, 342, 330, 466, 471, 201, 302 of the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- ambika Katare that the applicant is a public servant and he is working in Police Department. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed any offence rather, he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the deceased has committed suicide and he was a habitual offender against whom eight criminal cases have been registered including offence under Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK act. On the alleged date of incident, during travelling deceased Shivam fled away with handcuff from the custody of police and thereafter, he committed suicide in the house of one Mahendra who was his friend. It is further submitted that in the present case, later on, a CID investigation was conducted by which the CID has drawn a conclusion that offence under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out against the applicant, hence, charge sheet has to be filed for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is further submitted that the applicant has already faced a departmental enquiry and his one increment has been withheld. No case is made out against the applicant under Section 306 of IPC as no ingredients of Section 107 of IPC are attracted. It is further submitted that co-accused Devendra Mishra has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 12/04/2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.17925/2022 and the case of present applicant is on same footing. Trial will take its own time. The applicant is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that initially the complainant, who is the father of the deceased, filed one application under Section 156(3) of CrPC on account of that the concerned Magistrate after applying its judicial mind has taken cognizance and directed the police to register a case under Sections 302, 306 and 120-B of IPC. It is further submitted that eight ante mortem injuries were found over the body of the deceased and the injures found are still unexplained. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail then it will affect the society. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts along with nature and gravity of offence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties coupled with the fact that co-accused Devendra Mishra has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, in the interest of justice, 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 stringent 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 Cour
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused.
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in cases involving charges where a death sentence may be awarded.
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 after considering the seriousness of the charge, the applicant's cooperation in the investigation, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
The court emphasized that sending a person to jail should be the last resort and considered the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail, focusing on the nature and gravity of the accusation and the....
The court applied the legal provision under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant based on the circumstances and material available on record.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when the allegations do not involve severe penalties, and the accused is required to cooperate with the investigation.
Grant of anticipatory bail based on the absence of material against the applicant and imposition of specific conditions for the grant of bail.
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.