Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 50 (MP)

Hemant Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-01-13

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This is the first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the CrPC. 3. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.272/2014, registered at P.S. Dehat Ganjbasoda District Vidisha for the offence punishable under sections 294, 506, 341, 420, 462, of IPC and 3(1) (4), 3(1)(5) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants Hemant Singh sold out a plot Survey No.661 on 16.1.2006 by registered sale deed to Smt. Sunita wife of Ashish and in the name of Anita sister-in-law of Sunita. They also obtained possession of the land. On 30.12.2013 when they went to the plot for demarcation, the applicants Hemant Singh and Hari Singh obstructed them and told that Hemant Singh sold this land to Hari Singh. They also stated that this plot was not sold to the complainant party. The applicants further stated that the complainant is Adiwasi and she is not allowed to live in this area. On the basis of this a report was lodged. 5. On behalf of applicants it is submitted that with regard to plot, a Civil Suit was filed by the complainant party against applicants Hemant Singh and Hari Singh in the year 2013. They prayed for injunction against applicants Hemant Singh and Hari Singh. Subsequently, on filing an application, before the ACJM, Ganjbasoda, the ACJM ordered the Police Ganjbasoda to register a FIR. On the basis of which on 30.12.2013 the report was lodged. 6. It is claimed that the applicants are innocent. The complainant party feel that they will not succeed in the Civil Suit, this case has been converted into criminal case. It is also stated that no such incident ever took place. They have not abused by calling caste name. Therefore, offence under sections 3(1)(4), 3(1)(5) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989 is not made out. Similarly, offence under sections 294, 506 341 are the bailable offence. Therefore, the applicants pray for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application for bail. 8. As per documents enclosed, it is evident that the Civil Suit No.28-A/14 has been initiated before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Ganjbasoda by the complainant party against the applicants. 9. Therefore, the applicants pray for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application for bail. 8. As per documents enclosed, it is evident that the Civil Suit No.28-A/14 has been initiated before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Ganjbasoda by the complainant party against the applicants. 9. Keeping in view the above, prima facie no specific averments has been made by the complainant with regard to insult intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name and following the law laid down in Ummed Singh and others v. State of M.P. and another, reported in 2013(2) JLJ 75 =2013(1) MPLJ (Cri) 60, it deem it proper to give the benefit of section 438 of CrPC to the applicants. Accordingly, application is allowed. 10. It is directed that applicants make themselves present before the Arresting Officer, within 10 days from today and in the event of their arrest the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 11. The applicants are directed to join the Investigation immediately and to fully co-operate with the investigation. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of CrPC. 12. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa v. State of Maharastra and other JT 2010(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. Rajkumar Shrivastava for applicants; Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.