Durga Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection

with Crime No.237/2020 registered at Police Station Digouda, District Tikamgarh (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 452, 325, 324,

294 and 506 of IPC.

The allegation of prosecution is that on 24.8.2019 at about 5.15 pm, at village Bedhau, under the jurisdiction of police Station Degoda, Tikamgarh,

present applicant with other co-accused have entered into the house of complainant Dipendra Singh after breaking the door of house and inflicted

injuries to Jai Hind Singh on his head and his family members Dharmendra, Rajjanbai a n d Ragini b y w hi c h t he y also sustained grievous injury. T

h e injured w e r e taken t o t h e hospital. Complainant Dipendra Singh lodged the report. On that basis, Dehati Nalisi was recorded. Later on injured

Jai Hind Singh, Dharmendra Singh, Ragini and Rajjan Bai were also medically examined. The injury of Jai Hind Singh and Dharmendra Singh were

found to be grievous and dangerous to life. On that basis the above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicant and co-accused

persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the crime. On the false report of

the complainant, the case has been registered against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent residents of the address

shown in the application. He is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court. In view of the

aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the same.

It is alleged that applicant is absconding from the date of the incident. Some objections are raised by the prosecution that the applicant is making

pressure on the complainant to withdraw the report.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety particularly, the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the

respondent and having regard to the gravity of offence, in the opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

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

to be and is accordingly dismissed.