High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramsewak Raikwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 26 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 MP CK 0066

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 354A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 53866 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 504 words

I.A. No.10752/219, an application filed u/S.301(2) of Cr.P.C. is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor.

Case-diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is first application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant.

Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354-A of IPC registered as Crime No.151/2019 by Police Station- Unnao, District- Datia (M.P.).

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant aged about 52 years who is posted as MPS in Primary Health Center, Unnao, District Datia and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complainant used to arrive late and when the applicant complained it and in that regard, notice dated 28/11/2019 has been issued against the complainant, due to which, the complainant lodged a false report against the applicant. It is further submitted that if the applicant is put behind bar, his entire future as well as social image would be destroyed. The applicant is a permanent resident of District- Datia and he is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the application by contending that offence is of heinous nature and against the woman. It is also submitted that applicant has a habitual offender and he has committed the offence of similar nature earlier, therefore, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out and prayed for its rejection.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant namely- Ramsewak Raikwar, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.

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

1.

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

2.

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.

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

5.

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

6.

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