Anil Kumar Gupta & Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.26 of 2018 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Surguja for the

offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 2.3.2018 (on the day of Holi festival) at about 5:30 p.m., a dispute took place between Complainant Ravindra

Jaiswal and Applicant No.1, Anil Kumar Gupta. Ravindra Jaiswal told about the incident to his relatives Akash Jaiswal and Mukund Jaiswal. Both

Akash Jaiswal and Mukund Jaiswal went to the house of the Applicants and asked them why did they abuse Complainant Ravindra Jaiswal. The

Applicants, abusing Akash Jaiswal and Mukund Jaiswal, beat them with bat and rod. On the basis of the report made by the Complainant, offence

under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the Applicants. Later on, offence punishable under Section 307 of the

Indian Penal Code is also added/registered against them.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The entire

story is concocted and baseless. Virtually, Akash Jaiswal and Mukund Jaiswal had gone to the house of the Applicants and used filthy language

against them and they had also assaulted the Applicants. Applicant No.1, Anil Kumar Gupta has also lodged a First Information Report on 2.3.2018

itself. On the basis of the said FIR, offence under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the Complainant

party. He further submits that initially only the offence under Sections 294, 506 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the

Applicants, but later on, under the influence of the Complainant party, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has also been added.

Prima facie, no offence is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the offences are bailable. Therefore, he prays that the

Applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State and the Objector oppose the bail application and submit that finger of Akash alias Arvind Jaiswal had been

fractured in the incident. The assault was made with bat and rod. Injuries were caused on the face and head also. Therefore, the offence under

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is also made out against the Applicants. They further submit that the Applicants do not deserve anticipatory bail.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that only one injury suffered by Akash Jaiswal

was grievous in nature and that too the said injury was suffered by him on his finger and all the other injuries caused to other injured persons were

simple in nature, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present Applicants.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on each

of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Officer/Presiding Officer of the concerned Trial Court. They shall also abide by all the following terms and conditions:

(i) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such fact to the Court,

(ii) They shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

(iii) They shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.