AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J
This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Criminal Case No./RCT No.957/2025 Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 458, 380, 382 and 386 of the IPC.
As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that applicants entered the complainant's house with a sickle and stick and threatened and abused the complainant. Applicants also took away her gold and silver jewelry, three lakh rupees, and other items.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants and complainant belongs to the same family. There was some property dispute between the parties. Both the parties have registered cases against each other. In this case, complaint has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Chhatarpur then the Court ordered an enquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the report was called, thereafter, the Police submitted the report that the complaint seems to be false and no case is made out. No FIR has been lodged for the incident dated 14.08.202020 and 22.09.2020 whereas, in the complaint it is mentioned that written complaint was given to the Superintendent of Police and D.I.G. Chhatarpur but no such document has been filed by the complainant. In this case, during enquiry statement of Raghuprasad Rawat and Santosh Rawat have been recorded but in the complaint name of both these persons are not mentioned as witnesses. In the complaint, name of Arvind Rawat and Halki Rawat were mentioned as witnesses but their statements have not been recorded. Even this complaint was presented in the Court after more than one year. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 is a lady aged about 46 years, her daughter applicant No.3 and son applicant No.4 are students and applicant No.2 is her married daughter who is residing separately with her husband. There is no need of custodial interrogation. Applicants are ready to co-operate with the trial. Therefore, it has been prayed that the applicants may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/objector has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that regarding the incident complainant has complaint the police on phone but fairly submits that no FIR was lodged at that time.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants is allowed. It is directed that if the applicants are arrested by the police, then they will be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.
Applicants shall abide by the following conditions under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.:-
(a) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;
(b) They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;
(c) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(d) They shall not commit similar offence, of which, they are accused or suspected.
(e) They will further abide by the conditions enumerated in Sub-section (3) of Section 480 of the B.N.S.S.
Certified copy as per rules.