Skip to content


Sadashiv Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Sadashiv

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt:


.....sold the disputed property, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed. on due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the considered view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant 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, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.25,000/- (rs.twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. the applicant is directed to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigating agency. it is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of cr.p.c.this order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. in the meantime, if the applicant so desires, may apply for regular bail before the competent court, which shall be considered by that court in accordance with law. certified copy as per rules. (g.s.solanki) judge pb

Judgment:


M.Cr.C.No.1604/2013 12.3.2013 Shri Ravi Kant Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Akhilendra Singh, GA for the State.

Shri L.N.Sakle, Advocate for the objector.

This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.12/2013 registered at P.S.Cheepawad, District Harda for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467/34, 120-B of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case.

It is a civil dispute on the basis of will.

The complainant filed a civil suit, thereafter he lodged private complaint against applicant and filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.The learned Magistrate directed the Police to register criminal case against the applicant, therefore, the applicant is apprehending his arrest.

Co-accused Saroj Bai, Satish Kumar, Ramniwas, Kewalram, Laluram have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2013 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2512/2013.

The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State and the objector have opposed the application and submitted that during the pendency of the civil suit, the applicant has sold the disputed property, therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed.

On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant 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, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer.

The applicant is directed to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigating agency.

It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days.

In the meantime, if the applicant so desires, may apply for regular bail before the competent Court, which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB


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