SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 7th OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2192 of 2024 BETWEEN:- HARISH S/O BHUWANISHANKAR JI ANEA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 9 RAMNAGAR COLONY MANASA DISTT.NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT SHRI MANGESH BHACHAWAT, ADVOCATE AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MANASA DISTT.

NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT MS.NISHA TANWAR, PANEL LAWYER SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR This application coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:

Advocates:
Mangesh Bhachawat,Advocate General

ORDER

1. This is applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.11/2023 registered at Police Station Manasa, District Neemuch (MP) for offence punishable under Section 420,467,468,471,120-B of IPC.

2. Allegations against the applicant is that he was instrumental in mutation order passed in favour of Latika W/o Anoop Jha which according to the objector was councillor in Municipal Corporation Manasa, District Neemuch.

3. However, counsel for the objector has admitted that the applicant Harish was not councillor but a representative of the councillor although no such document has been filed on record

4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he happens to be an acquaintance of the main accused persons, and it is submitted that the applicant had never any connection with the Municipal Council and apart from that, the order of mutation dated 1.1.2021 passed by Nagar Palika. The resolution regarding the mutation preferred by the objector has already been affirmed in Appeal No.86/Appeal/2021-22 by the Additional Collector, Neemuch vide order dated 9.9.2022. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant deserves to be released on anticipatory bail as all the other co- accused persons have already been granted bail, and more importantly the applicant is neither the signatory nor beneficiary of the Will left by the deceased Indumati.

5. Having considered the rival submission and on perusal of the documents filed on record as also the case diary, it is found that the applicant has been arraigned only on the ground that he was involved in the mutation of the property although there is nothing on record to suggest that he has gained anything from the said property. It is also found that the dispute is between the same members of the family, who are at loggerheads in respect of properties left by deceased Indumati.

6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary in the present case. In view of the same, applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

7. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).

8. 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE das

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top