Dilip Sareyam vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J

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

apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.12/2021 registered at Police Station Junnardev, District Chhindwara for commission of offences

punishable under Sections 379, 34 of the IPC Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Proerty Act, Section 4/21 of Khan Adhiniyam and

Section 166/196, 130 (3)/177, 3/181, 5/180 of Motor Vehicle Act.

The case of the prosecution against the applicant in short is that, the applicant is owner of the tractor in which sand was being carried illegally. Driver

of the tractor was not having papers of the tractor. He informed that sand was being carried on the the instruction of applicant and he has been given

Rs.300/- for selling it.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant

may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposes the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the same tractor was

previously involved for carrying illegal sand. Mining collector has previously imposed fine upon the applicant; therefore, prays for dismissal of the

application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy. No doubt, there is prima-facie ingredients available against the driver; however, the

applicant is equally involved in this crime.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicant Dilip

Sareyam deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.