Skip to content


Harshit Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Harshit Shrivastava

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt:


.....on anticipatory bail. learned counsel for state has opposed the application. 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 release the applicants on anticipatory bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of rs.25,000/- (rs.twenty five thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the the arresting officer. the applicants are directed to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigating agency. they shall further abide by the other 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 from today. in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, 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) pb judge

Judgment:


M.Cr.C.No.3142/2013 12.3.2013 Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri Punit Shroti, PL for the State.

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

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

The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.142/2013 registered at P.S.Garha, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case.

The incident alleged to have taken place on chaffing.

As per prosecution, it is alleged that the applicants assaulted complainant by lathi and when complainant ray away in his house, the applicants entered into his house.

No case under section 452 of the IPC is made out against the applicants.

Remaining offences are bailable.

The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.

The applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be tarnished, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.

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 release the applicants on anticipatory bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the the arresting officer.

The applicants are directed to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigating agency.

They shall further abide by the other 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 from today.

In the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, 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) PB Judge


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