Sandeep Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

I.A No. 7976/2019, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting learned Public Prosecutor for the State is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist learned Public Prosecutor for the State during final hearing.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This is First application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 41/2019 registered at Police Station Umari, District Bhind, for the offences punishable under sections 336, 324, 323, 427, 294, 506, 34 and added section 326 of IPC.

Prosecution story, in short, on 18/2/19 at about 8 AM, when the co-accused Satyabhan, co-accused Janak Singh and the present applicant Sandeep were levelling the disputed land. The complaiant stopped them, due to which, they started using filthy language and abused him. When the complainant closed the door of his house, the applicant and co-accused Janak Singh had broken the door and made a big hole in it. Thereafter, they threw stones on the house of the complainant, which hit to the wife of the complainant and she received injuries on her right shoulder and left knee. When the complainant came out of his house, at that time, wives of co-accused Ravindra and Janak Singh came on the spot and they also started pelting stones, which hit to the elder brother of the complainant, due to which, he sustained injuries. The co-accused Janak Singh inflicted lathi blow on the back of the complainant and the co-accused Ravindra threw stones, which hit on his left hand and the present applicant assaulted by Axe, due to which, the complainant sustained injuries on his nose. On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. A cross-case has been registered against the complaiant party at Crime No. 43/19 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 294 and 506-B, 34 and added section 326 of the IPC. There is no allegation against him of inflicting injuries to the victim and the injuries received by the victim are simple in nature. As such, no case is made out against him. At the most offences under sections 323 and 325 of the IPC would be made out which are bailable in nature. The accused in the cross case has been released on bail, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. He is a permanent resident of P.S. Umari, District Bhind and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for anticipatory bail is made.

In response, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application on the ground that no case for grant of bail is made out. It is submitted that the applicant has inflicted injuries with the aid of Axe, therefore, offence under Section 326 of IPC has been enhanced. The applicant cannot claim parity with the accused in the cross case. Applicant is absconding since date of registration of FIR and investigation against him is pending and custodial interrogation of the applicant may be required, therefore, prima facie, at this stage, no definite conclusion can be arrived at and prays for its rejection.

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. The application, therefore, stands rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.