IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 30th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56301 of 2022 BETWEEN:- SANDEEP SHUKLA S/O RAJESH SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 63, RAMKRISHNA BAG COLONY RING ROAD KANADIYA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI NILESH DAVE)
AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION M.I.G., DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for order this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is first bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.799/2022, registered at Police Station, City -MIG, INdore District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294, 427, 506 and 34 of IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.11.2022 at about 13:00 hours, when complainant Puja went to RJ Kachori shop, co-accused Megha, Tina and Punam abused and assaulted her by pelting stones on her head and also with kick and fists, due to which she sustained injuries on her body. Applicant assisted the co-accused persons in the aforesaid act. Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR lodged on the date of incident. On 07.11.2022 complainant first time in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., named the applicant and stated that he was present on the spot at the time of incident and also abused and threatened her. Learned counsel further submits that injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. There is nothing which indicates that the injuries sustained by the complainant were dangerous to life. Initially offence was registered under Section 294, 323, 427 and 506 of IPC which are bailable in nature. His custodial interrogation is not required in the matter. He is ready and willing to co-operate the investigation and furnish appropriate surety, according to the order of this Court. On these grounds the prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that applicant called the complainant on the spot at the time of incident and he is very well involved in the crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, FIR lodged by the complainant after about three and a half hour of the incident wherein applicant's name was not mentioned and also considering the complainant's MLC report as well as overall material produced on record, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
M.Cr.C.stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
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.