Brajesh Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.44/2019 registered at Police Station Panagar, District Jabalpur under Sections 354, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 11.01.2019 at about 09:00 am the construction work of road was going on in Village Mudiya, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Panagar, District Jabalpur under the supervision of applicant, who is husband of Janpad Member Smt. Savita Patel. It is alleged that at the time of incidence, prosecutrix has reached there and complained regarding the standard of work done by the applicant, on that basis some altercation has taken place between the applicant and the prosecutrix. It is also alleged that at that time the applicant pushed the prosecutrix, abused her, hold her hand with bad intention, squeezed her breast and threatened her regarding her life. The prosecutrix lodged the FIR. On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that the applicant has also lodged the complaint stating that the prosecutrix herself has misbehaved with the applicant when the construction work was going on. Many person were present at the scene of incidence. The applicant neither abused her nor tried to outrage her modesty. The applicant has also lodged the complaints before the Superintendent of Police and T.I. of the area and has also filed the affidavit of Beni Prasad to whom the construction work was entrusted and he specifically submitted that some altercation has taken place but it is the prosecutrix who was abusing the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address described in the application. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him. There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. In view of the aforesaid, a prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant and the allegation made against the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, applicant deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicant, is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.