Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 393 (MP)

Mangilal v. State of M. P.

2003-03-07

S.L.KOCHAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Heard with the aid of case diary. On 21.2.2003, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the State prayed for listing of this case along with Misc. Criminal Case No. 3895/02. Office has also tagged this decided case along with this case, but this case has no relevancy with the present case. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC. In connection with Crime No. 115/02 for the offence punishable u/s 380, 458, 395 and 397 of the IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that by order dated 29.10.2002, both the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam. Thereafter, in view of the apprehension that police may file charge sheet u/s 395,397 IPC, which was not initially registered by the police, they have applied for anticipatory bail. At the initial stage police has registered the offence against the accused persons only u/s 458 and 380 of the IPC. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 29.10.2002 granted anticipatory bail. At that time the offence u/s 395, 397 of the IPC was not registered. The bail was granted because the name of the applicants were appearing for the first time in the statement of the complainant u/s 164 CrPC, which was recorded after one month on the ground that civil dispute between the applicants and the complainant party was going on. To this effect, the applicants had also filed copies of Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 5/02 and 7/02 before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants has also filed documents showing the fact that civil litigation is going on between the complainant party as well as the applicants. On apprehension, the applicants have again moved application and the same has been dismissed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Retlam on the ground that the applicants have committed breach of first order granting them anticipatory bail dated 29.10.2002 vide bail application No. 986102. In the said order, the learned Court below has imposed condition that they will apply within 15 days before the competent Court for grant of regular bail; they will also appear before the police whenever they will be called for the purposes of interrogation and they will cooperate in the investigation. They will also not leave the State of M.P. without permission by the trial Court. They will also not leave the State of M.P. without permission by the trial Court. All these conditions have not been complied with by the applicants because of which the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, has rejected the second anticipatory bail application for the offence punishable u/s. 380, 485, 395/397 IPC. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly rejected the bail application on the ground that the applicants have not complied with the conditions imposed upon them while granting them bail by order dated 29.10.2002. Counsel for the applicants himself submitted before the trial Court that the applicants had gone to Kota (Rajasthan State) for the purposes of doing labour works. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the applicants have not complied with the conditions imposed by the Court below by granting them order of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled for getting protective order. Thus, this application is dismissed.