Awashtha And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sunita Yadav, J

This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No. 42 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mayapur, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 307, 353, 332, 186, 294, 427, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that applicants are entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail because cognizance cannot be taken without filing of the private complaint by the concerned officer for offence under section 186 of IPC. The applicants are permanent resident of District Shivpuri. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time and there is no likelihood of their absconsion, if released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that FIR against present applicants have been registered under sections 307, 353, 332, 294, 427, 147, 148, 149 of IPC also and the applicants are absconding since the date of registration of FIR and custodial interrogation of the applicants is very much needed. It is further submitted that provision of section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. does not attract in offence under sections 307, 353, 332, 294, 427, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. It is further submitted that in view of gravity of offence applicants are not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Under these circumstances so also in the light of the fact that prima facie sufficient evidence is available against the applicants in regard to commission of the offence under aforesaid sections, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

It would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and manner in which the applicant/accused is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Consequently, the present bail application is hereby dismissed.