Sukhlal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1049469
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnAug-09-2012
AppellantSukhlal Sahu
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
m.cr.c.no.6810/2012 09/08/2012 shri sharad verma, learned counsel for the applicants. shri a.k.singh, p.p.for the respondent/state. at the outset, learned counsel for applicants prays for withdrawal of this application on behalf of applicant no.2 ramesh sahu. prayer allowed. accordingly, this application on behalf of applicant no.2 ramesh sahu is dismissed as withdrawn. this is the firs.bail application filed by applicant no.1 sukhlal sahu under section 438 of the cr.p.c.for grant of anticipatory bail. the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime no.7/12, registered at police station ajjak, district sidhi for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506/34, 326 of ipc and section 3 (2) (v) of sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989. learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. it is further submitted that as per prosecution itself the main allegation is made against ramesh sahu who said to have been assaulted the complainant. the incident took place on the spur of moment and making the abuse does not amount the humiliation therefore, no case u/s 3 (2) (v) of sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 is made out against the applicant. applicant is a reputed person of the society and ready to co-operate in further investigation. in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished 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 no.1, 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 no.1 sukhlal sahu 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
Judgment:

M.Cr.C.No.6810/2012 09/08/2012 Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri A.K.Singh, P.P.for the respondent/State.

At the outset, learned counsel for applicants prays for withdrawal of this application on behalf of applicant no.2 Ramesh Sahu.

Prayer allowed.

Accordingly, this application on behalf of applicant no.2 Ramesh Sahu is dismissed as withdrawn.

This is the fiRs.bail application filed by applicant no.1 Sukhlal Sahu under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.7/12, registered at police station AJJAK, District Sidhi for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34, 326 of IPC and section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

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

It is further submitted that as per prosecution itself the main allegation is made against Ramesh Sahu who said to have been assaulted the complainant.

The incident took place on the spur of moment and making the abuse does not amount the humiliation therefore, no case u/s 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the applicant.

Applicant is a reputed person of the society and ready to co-operate in further investigation.

In the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished 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 no.1, 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 no.1 Sukhlal Sahu 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