Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 302 (MP)

Saroj Yadav v. State of M. P.

2015-03-17

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. This is the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the CrPC. 2. The applicant apprehends her arrest in connection with Crime No. 189/2014, registered at P.S. Civil Line District Datia for the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 506B/34, 452, 307 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) SC and ST (POA) Act. 3. As per prosecution story, the complainant Motilal lodged a report that he along with his brother Lalaram sold the piece of land to accused Ashok Yadav, husband of the present applicant, Smt. Saroj Yadav. Rs.34,00,000/- were remained to be paid to the complainant Motilal. On 11.10.2014, when complainant Motilal went to Ashok Yadav to demand his money. Following this, on the next day at about 11 a.m. when Lalaram was at home, the accused Ashok Yadav, applicant Smt. Saroj and brother-in-law of Ashok Yadav, Annu Yadav came to his house and knowing that he is a member of scheduled caste abused him and also insulted him by calling the caste name. They caught injured Lalaram, both accused Ashok Yadav and Annu Yadav and the present applicant beaten him by wooden stick. Ashok and Saroj said to have inflicted the injured on the leg, near left eye. When brother of the complainant tried to save him Lalaram climbed to the terrace, the accused persons followed him and all the accused persons caught the injured Lalaram and thrown him from the terrace to the ground. At the time of incident, Rinku and Lalla Yadav were present, who saw the incident. 4. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant is innocent. Applicant is the wife of Ashok Yadav. There is no allegation of abusing or insulting the complainant or his brother by the present applicant. It is also claimed that as the sale deed dated 15.3.2012 the applicant along with other persons purchased the piece of land from complainant Lallu Ahirwar and other person. After this purchase an affidavit mentioning that they have no objection regarding mutation. Therefore, mutation was also completed. This document shows that the purchase and subsequent mutation was completed and payment in this regard was made. 5. After this purchase an affidavit mentioning that they have no objection regarding mutation. Therefore, mutation was also completed. This document shows that the purchase and subsequent mutation was completed and payment in this regard was made. 5. It is further argued on behalf of the applicant that a complaint was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Datia, on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Datia and on his report dated 31.12.2014, it is found that on 11.10.2014 at about 8 p.m. the injured Lalaram Yadav and Jagat Singh were drinking alcohol. Lalaram and Ashok Yadav had verbal exchange of abuses. The complainant's son Jaisingh after putting the injured Lalaram in the house closed the door from outside. Injured Lalaram climbed to the terrace and the injured Lalaram under the influence of alcohol jumped from the terrace due to which he sustained injuries on his leg, nose and near the left eye. The injured Lalaram was taken for treatment on 12.10.2014 and the incident was lodged twisting it to be that the incident occurred at 11 a.m. On the basis of which the Additional Superintendent of Police, Datia opined that the offence punishable under sections 307, 452 of IPC is not proved. There is enmity between the parties with regard to nonpayment of sale price of land. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application for bail. 7. Considering the facts that the applicant is a woman of 42 years, no specific allegation of insulting humiliating the injured calling his caste is attributed to the applicant. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down in Ummed Singh and others v. State of M.P. and another 2013(2) JLJ 75 =2013(3) MPHT 229, this application is allowed. 9. It is directed that applicant make herself present before the Arresting Officer, within 7 days from today and in the event of her arrest the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 10. The applicant is directed to join the Investigation immediately and to fully co-operate with the investigation. Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 10. The applicant is directed to join the Investigation immediately and to fully co-operate with the investigation. She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of CrPC. 11. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa v. State of Maharastra and other JT2010 (13) SC 247, this order shall remain in force till the end of trial. However, the applicant has to furnish a fresh bail bond and surety before the trial Court after filing of the challan. Ankur Mody for applicant; Kuldeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.