Mahadev Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice U.C. Maheshwari - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1120236
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-20-2014
AppellantMahadev
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice U.C. Maheshwari
Excerpt:
m.cr.c.no.14099 of 2013 20.01.2014 ku. pooja gajara, learned counsel for the applicant. shri santosh yadav, learned pl for respondent-state. heard on ia no.26004/13, an application on behalf of the applicant permitting him to prosecute this petition through shri pradeep naveriya, adv.and his associates instead the earlier engaged counsel. the same is also supported by an affidavit of the applicant. for the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and appearing counsel of the applicant alongwith shri pradeep naveriya is permitted to prosecute this petition instead the earlier engaged counsel. learned pl submits that he is under receipt of the case diary. the case is also listed for final hearing. heard. on behalf of the applicant, this petition is filed under section 438 of cr.p.c for grant of anticipatory bail as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of crime no.394/13, registered against him at police station kundipura, district chhindwara for the offence punishable under sections 363, 498-a/34 of ipc. on asking the applicant's counsel to argue the matter, on which but instead to make any submission, she prayed to decide the petition on merits after perusing the case diary. in such premises, there is no option with the court except to hear the state's counsel and decide the petition with the help of the case diary. having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, i have carefully gone through the fir, interrogatory statements of smt. savita @ jyoti, the complainant and her parents, the mother, smt. chandra prabha lokhande and father lalit lokhande and the interrogatory statements of other witnesses, namely bhagwan dake and papers available on record, i have found sufficient prima facie circumstance against the applicant for committing the alleged offence and in such premises, he does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. consequently the petition is hereby dismissed on merits. however, the investigation officer of the impugned case is directed that on making the arrest of the applicant after completing the formalities of the procedure, he be produced before the warrant court on the same day with further direction that on production of the applicant, if any application for grant of bail is preferred before such court, then the same shall be considered and decided by such court on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. c c as per rules. ( u.c.maheshwari ) judge bks
Judgment:

M.Cr.C.No.14099 of 2013 20.01.2014 Ku.

Pooja Gajara, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Santosh Yadav, learned PL for respondent-State.

Heard on IA No.26004/13, an application on behalf of the applicant permitting him to prosecute this petition through Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Adv.and his associates instead the earlier engaged counsel.

The same is also supported by an affidavit of the applicant.

For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and appearing counsel of the applicant alongwith Shri Pradeep Naveriya is permitted to prosecute this petition instead the earlier engaged counsel.

Learned PL submits that he is under receipt of the case diary.

The case is also listed for final hearing.

Heard.

On behalf of the applicant, this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No.394/13, registered against him at Police Station Kundipura, district Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 498-A/34 of IPC.

On asking the applicant's counsel to argue the matter, on which but instead to make any submission, she prayed to decide the petition on merits after perusing the case diary.

In such premises, there is no option with the court except to hear the State's Counsel and decide the petition with the help of the case diary.

Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the FIR, interrogatory statements of Smt.

Savita @ Jyoti, the complainant and her parents, the mother, Smt.

Chandra Prabha Lokhande and father Lalit Lokhande and the interrogatory statements of other witnesses, namely Bhagwan Dake and papers available on record, I have found sufficient prima facie circumstance against the applicant for committing the alleged offence and in such premises, he does not deserve for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently the petition is hereby dismissed on merits.

However, the Investigation Officer of the impugned case is directed that on making the arrest of the applicant after completing the formalities of the procedure, he be produced before the warrant court on the same day with further direction that on production of the applicant, if any application for grant of bail is preferred before such court, then the same shall be considered and decided by such court on the same day in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

C c as per rules.

( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks