Skip to content


Yadvendra Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Yadvendra Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt:


.....grant of  anticipatory bail to the applicant. considering   the   contentions   raised   on   behalf   of   the  parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without  expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,  i am of the  view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. the  application is allowed. it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of arresting officer subject to compliance of terms and conditions as enumerated in section 438(2) of cr.p.c.it is further directed that applicant shall join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigating agency. this order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. during this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent court, which shall be considered by that court in accordance with law. c.c.as per rules. (g.s.solanki) judge ravi

Judgment:


M.Cr.C. No.1694/2013 6.3.2013 Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Nishant Datt,  counsel for the applicant.

Shri  R.K. Kesharwani, PL, for the respondent/State.

Heard.

This   is   an   application   under   Section   438   of   Cr.P.C   for  grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime  No.21/2013 registered at Police Station Nagod District Satna  for offence punishable under Sections  114, 186, 353, 420 and  120­B/34 of IPC.

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant   submitted   that   the  applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant is  aged about 60 years.   It is alleged against the applicant that  when   paddy   was   seized   from   the   possession   of   co­accused  Rajendra   and   Ramesh   at   that   time   the   present   applicant  obstructed Ramlakhan,  thereby committed the alleged offence.  It  is   a  case   of   belated  FIR. He  is   ready  to  co­operate  in  the  investigation. The applicant is a reputed person of the society  and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished,  therefore,   he   prays   for     grant   of   anticipatory   bail   to   the  applicant.  Learned counsel for the State has objected the prayer for  grant of  anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Considering   the   contentions   raised   on   behalf   of   the  parties along with facts and circumstances of the case, without  expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,  I am of the  view that present is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The  application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand ) with a solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to compliance of terms and conditions as enumerated in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.It is further directed that applicant shall join the investigation and fully co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days.

During this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law.

C.C.as per rules.

(G.S.Solanki) JUDGE ravi




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //