Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 15921
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, J
Umashankar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 12979/2024
Pradip Kumar Gupta,Advocate General
The court denied anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries and the nature of the weapon used, which justified the prosecution's case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail application - The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR for offences under IPC Sections 294, 323, 336, 506, and 326 - The applicant contended that the stone used does not qualify as a deadly weapon and the injuries do not constitute grievous hurt as per Section 320 IPC - The prosecution argued that the injuries were grievous and potentially life-threatening, justifying the seriousness of the charges - The court found that the case did not warrant anticipatory bail. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Bail - Principles governing anticipatory bail - The court must consider the nature of the offence and the severity of the injuries when deciding on anticipatory bail applications. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of assaulting Amraram with a stone during an argument, resulting in grievous injuries, and also assaulted Kanaram when he attempted to intervene.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the case did not justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issues included whether the stone used constituted a deadly weapon and whether the injuries were grievous as defined under IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the severity of the injuries and the nature of the weapon used were critical in determining the appropriateness of anticipatory bail, concluding that the case was serious enough to deny bail.
Result: M.Cr.C. is rejected.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with FIR/Crime No.16/2024 Date:-(Not mentioned) registered at P.S.-Balakwada, District-Khargone (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 336, 506 and 326 of the IPC.
2. Prosecution story in short is that, on 18.02.2024 at 5 p.m. there was some heated arguement between the injured Amraram and applicant/accused Umashankar meanwhile, applicant assaulted the injured by means of stone. He received injuries on head and face. When complainant Kanaram tried to rescue the injured the applicant also assaulted him on his chest by means of fists. The matter was reported on the same night.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that he has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that as alleged the applicant used a stone in the crime, but as provided under section 326 of the IPC, the stone does not comes under deadly weapon. It is also submitted that as provided under section 320 of the IPC injuries received by the Amraram does not comes under the definition of grievous hurt therefore, offence under section 326 of the IPC is not made out against the applicant and other offences are bailable in nature. It is also submitted that applicant is a reputed person and police is trying to arrest him therefore, it is prayed that applicant be granted anticipatory bail.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the non-applicant/State has objected the prayer of the applicant and submits that injured Amraram was admitted in the hospital for treatment since 18.01.2024 to 23.01.2024. As per injury report, injury received by the injured is grievous in nature and the injury could have been life threatening. It is also submitted that looking to the size and weight of the used stone in the crime, the stone comes under the definition of deadly weapon. Offence is serious in nature therefore applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case-diary also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this court it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Resultantly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
