Ramkumar Shukla Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1047180
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-26-2013
AppellantRamkumar Shukla
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
m.cr.c. no.3796/2013 26.3.2013 dr. anuvad shrivastava , counsel for the applicant. shri puneet shroti, pl , for the respondent/state. heard. admit. call for the case diary. also heard on ia no.7011/2013. 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.6/2013 registered at police station taradehi, tahsil tendukheda, district damoh for offence punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of ipc and section 3/4 of protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012. learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. he has no criminal past. learned counsel further submits that father of the prosecutrix has filed an application before the superintendent of police, damoh for withdrawing the complaint lodged against the applicant. prosecutrix and her parents have filed the affidavits in favour of the present applicant before the court. the applicant is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. learned counsel for the state has objected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. i have heard the parties. the case is registered for offence punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of ipc. it is not expected from parties to appear before the court to support the accused person against whom they lodged the report. such practice must be deprecated, otherwise it will become a practice that the powerful person, who want to release on anticipatory bail, may try to produce the complainant in the court alongwith the affidavits. considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. the application is dismissed. list this matter for final hearing along with case diary in week commencing 8/4/2013. (g.s.solanki) judge ravi
Judgment:

M.Cr.C. No.3796/2013 26.3.2013 Dr.

Anuvad Shrivastava , counsel for the applicant.

Shri Puneet Shroti, PL , for the respondent/State.

Heard.

Admit.

Call for the case diary.

Also heard on IA No.7011/2013.

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.6/2013 registered at Police Station Taradehi, Tahsil Tendukheda, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.

He has no criminal past.

Learned counsel further submits that father of the prosecutrix has filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Damoh for withdrawing the complaint lodged against the applicant.

Prosecutrix and her parents have filed the affidavits in favour of the present applicant before the court.

The applicant is reputed person of the society and in the event of arrest, his reputation would be tarnished therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has objected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

I have heard the parties.

The case is registered for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC.

It is not expected from parties to appear before the Court to support the accused person against whom they lodged the report.

Such practice must be deprecated, otherwise it will become a practice that the powerful person, who want to release on anticipatory bail, may try to produce the complainant in the Court alongwith the affidavits.

Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

The application is dismissed.

List this matter for final hearing along with case diary in week commencing 8/4/2013.

(G.S.Solanki) JUDGE ravi