Nirpal Singh Chauhan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

I . A . No.8259/2021, an application for urgent hearing and I.A. No.8474/2021, an application for taking documents on record, are taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Documents filed by the applicant are taken on record.

The applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.112/2021 registered at Police Station Pichhor, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 458, 323, 294/34 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Nirpal Singh Chauhan that the applicant is Government Servant in Health Department. He has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. The FIR is delayed by eight days and no explanation of delay has been reflected in the FIR. The husband of the complainant Dharmendra Sharma exploits the residents of Thakur Baba Colony, Pichhor. Earlier one case has been registered under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC against the husband of the complainant Dharmendra Sharma who is in the habit of exploiting the people. In counterblast, this false FIR has been lodged against the applicant by the complainant, as the applicant had opposed the action of the husband of the complainant. Some residents of said colony have filed their affidavits wherein it is stated that no incident took place. As the applicant is Government servant, therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel has opposed the application and has submitted that the offence is registered under Sections 458, 323, 294/34 of IPC and at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail or regular bail, any affidavits filed cannot be considered. The alleged offence is punishable with 14 years of imprisonment and fine. The victim of the case has also got injuries which is supported by medical evidence. Hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case-diary.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2 . The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

3 . The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of trial Court/ Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

This anticipatory bail application stands disposed of in above terms.

E-copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.

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