Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1365 (MP)

Rajeev Dixit v. State of M. P.

2014-10-27

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.7649/2014, an application preferred under section 301(2) of CrPC. 2. Looking to the averments made in the application, application is allowed. Shri Chauhan is permitted to assist the prosecution. 3. Heard on bail application. 4. Case diary has been perused. 5. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.33/2014 registered at Police Station Mihona district Bhind for the offence punishable under sections 394 of IPC and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated. 8. This anticipatory bail application has been preferred on the ground that FIR was lodged by the complainant Saurav Upadhyay against the unknown person, though present applicant Rajeev Dixit is cousin-in-law of Saurav Upadhyay. In support of his contention, attention of this Court is drawn towards the marriage invitation card of Saurav Upadhyay and his wife Deepti, where name of the present applicant Rajeev Dixit is mentioned under the head of well-comers. It is also submitted that the applicant was well known to the complainant even though name has not been mentioned in the FIR. 9. Prayer for bail opposed by the complainant on the ground that it is an admitted fact that applicant was not present on the spot but only on the basis of his instigation, entire offence has been committed. He has been made accused on the basis of disclosure statement given by co-accused Vivek recorded under section 27 of Evidence Act. 10. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that on perusal of footage of mobile call details, one SMS was sent by present applicant Rajeev Dixit to the complainant that he has illicit relationship with his wife. 11. Looking to the facts of the case that present applicant was not named in FIR, even he was well known to the complainant, he was not present on the spot, therefore, only on the basis of memorandum statement given by co-accused Vivek and on the basis of call details and SMS, bail application cannot be dismissed. 12. 11. Looking to the facts of the case that present applicant was not named in FIR, even he was well known to the complainant, he was not present on the spot, therefore, only on the basis of memorandum statement given by co-accused Vivek and on the basis of call details and SMS, bail application cannot be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court directs that if the applicant surrenders himself before the Investigating Officer on or before 10th November, 2014 and thereafter furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer then he be released on bail, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated under section 437(2) of CrPC. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed. N. K. Chaturvedi for applicant; Pramod Pachauri for respondent/State; B.P.S. Chauhan for complainant.