Modi Singh vs State Of M.P

S.A.Dharmadhikari, J

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Case diary perused.

This is first bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C preferred for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.. 85/2020 registered at Police Station Amayan District Bhind (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 323, 341, 308, 427 and 34 of the IPC.

Allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons in short is that complainant is working as a operator of John Deer loader. On 26/07/2020 at about 9.00 pm , he was taking the loader to Samarth Rajput and as soon as he entered the village road, applicant and co-accused persons Babloo, Bunty and Krapa came on the spot and stopped the loader and demanded money for liquor. On refusing to pay, co-accused Babloo started beating him then complainant started loader and after sometime Chhote and Bhalu came on the motorcycle and stopped in front of the loader. Co-accused Chhote yielded 315 bore gun, co-accused persons Mulayam, Bhalu and Bablu armed with Katta and all of them started firing at the loader due to which two tyres were punctured and diesel started leaking. On the aforesaid basis, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that the offence is in two parts. One stopped the complainant and thereafter fired on the complainant. It is submitted that present applicant did not yield any weapon and he was simply present on the spot. There is no allegation of firing or beating against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in view of COVID-19 outbreak, detention of applicant in already congested prisons may be detrimental. It is submitted that applicant is permanent resident of Barethi Raj P.S. Amayaan Tahsil Mehgaon District Bhind and there is no likelihood of absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, if he is extended benefit of anticipatory bail. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and it is submitted that investigation is pending and custodial interrogation may be required in the matter. Recovery is yet to be made. In the MLC report, complainant has received injuries. Three criminal cases are pending against the applicant, therefore, prays for rejection of anticipatory bail.

However, 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, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, the first bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C stands rejected.

Certified copy/E-copy as per rules/directions.