Prem Narayan Mishra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the present applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.02/2018 registered at Police Station Sabhapur District Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 436, 147 and 148 of IPC.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 1.1.2018 two persons namely Hussain Mohammed and Azharuddin were murdered by a group of persons in which many persons have already been arrested, whereas the applicant's name has come on record by way of memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 of the co-accused Premlal.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the name of the present applicant does not appear in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses, as he has been implicated only with the aid of memo prepared by the co-accused Premlal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which in itself is not admissible, hence the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case only because he belongs to the community of the accused persons.

On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted that no case of grant of anticipatory bail is made out, as the name of the present applicant is clearly mentioned by the witnesses, whose statements were recorded soon after the incident.

In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statements of witnesses were recorded subsequently on 5.1.2018, as the FIR was lodged on 2.1.2018 in respect of the incident, which took place on 1.1.2018 by one Shan Mohammad and he has not mentioned the name of present applicant although the names of other accused persons have been clearly mentioned by him, whereas in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 5.1.2018 he has also mentioned the name of present applicant, as by that time the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared. Thus there is clear improvement from the earlier statement. Thus it is submitted that the present application be allowed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On perusal of the record this Court finds that the applicant approached the lower Court on 18.8.2019 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of an offence which was committed on 01.01.2018 i.e. around one year and eight months prior thereto. In the mean time, against him proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have also been initiated. Thus, it is apparent that the applicant has filed the application for anticipatory bail at his leisure, in a case involving double murder wherein his name has appeared within 5 days of the lodging of FIR. On this very ground, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court within two weeks time from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.