Vidhyaram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J

The first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.68 of 2022 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 325, 324, 326, 34 of IPC. Offence under Section 326 of IPC was added at the time of submission of Final Report.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as per FIR in Crime No.68 of 2023, Sitaram Jatav reported to PS Gohad District Bhind on 19-03-2022 that Tahsildar Jatav, Satish Jatav and Mukesh alias Kheelu Jatav came to his agricultural field and stated abusing him in filthy language. As Sitaram Jatav and his brother Heeralal objected to abuses, Tahsildar Jatav assaulted him with axe and Phool Singh assaulted him with lathi. Satish Jatav assaulted Heeralal with axe. As Sitaram and Heeralal were running towards their home, applicant Vidhyaram and Phool Singh intercepted them. Mukesh assaulted Vakil Singh by lathi, applicant Vidhyaram assaulted Vakil Singh by lathi and Phool Singh assaulted Mataprasad by lathi. Vidhyaram assaulted Mataprasad by lathi.

Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that when Heeralal was assaulted by axe, applicant Vidhyaram was not present on the spot of incident. It is alleged that he came when Sitaram and Heeralal were going to their home. There is no allegation of assault by applicant Vidhyaram to Heeralal or Sitaram. No bony injury was found on the person of Vakil Singh or Mataprasad in respect of whom assault by the applicant is alleged, therefore, no case of Section 326 of IPC or Section 326/34 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Despite offence alleged against the applicant being bailable, learned Sessions Judge refused to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant has substance that prima facie, offence punishable under Section 326/34 of IPC is not made out against the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant requests to withdraw this application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court with a further request that the trial Court may be directed to comply the directions of the Supreme Court in cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Notification No. A/5666/III-2-9/40 Pt-I F.No.15 dated 20/09/2023 issued by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur.

Considered.

This application is dismissed as withdrawn with the direction that the learned trial Court shall ensure due compliance with the guidelines and directions laid down in cases of Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) as well as in the light of aforesaid notification issued by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

C.C. as per rules.