Full Judgment
M.Cr.C.No.8574/2012 01/08/2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, P.P.for the respondent/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally.
This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.145/12, registered at police station Navgaon, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 186 and 506 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.
It is further submitted that no case u/s 353 of IPC is made out against the present applicant.
He is a young boy aged about 20 years and permanent resident of District Chhatarpur.
In the event of arrest, his reputation as well as career will be spoiled therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Learned counsel for State opposes the bail application.
On due consideration of the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties alongwith the nature of allegation made against the applicant, I am of the view that it is a fit case to release him on anticipatory bail.
Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Nitendra Kumar Pathak shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court.
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.In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others J.2010 (13) SC 247.it is directed that this order shall remain in force till the end of trial, if the applicant furnish the bail bond and surety bond before the committal Court/trial Court at the time of filing of challan as per the terms and conditions as mentioned above.
However, the public prosecutor or complainant would be at liberty to move the same Court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of bail any time if liberty granted by the Court is misused.
It is also clear that if the committal Court/trial Court issues an arrest warrant against the applicant due to his absence before the Court, then in such event this order be deemed ineffective.
C.C.as per rules.
(G.S.SOLANKI) Judge navin