Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 831 (MP)

VISHAL s/o SURESH DHARWAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-08-11

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Raman Solanki, learned Counsel for the applicants in MCRC No. 4528/15. Shri Akash Rathi, learned Counsel for the applicants in MCRC No. 4536/15. Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent State. 2. This common order shall regulate both these applications since they arise out of same crime number of same police station. 3. By these applications filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code applicants Vishal, Sunil, Amarsingh and Sudeep have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No. 42/14 registered by police station Sorwa, Distt. Alirajpur for offence under sections 304, 330, 218, 193 and 218/34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact that it was a case of false implication. Even if the prosecution allegations are considered, Counsel submitted that the applicants had no role to play in the custodial death of Jingala. Counsel submitted that merely because the applicants had taken the deceased to the hospital, they have been implicated and there is not an iota of evidence available on record against the present applicants. They would face double jeopardy by losing their jobs as well as their life have been threatened. Hence, Counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail since the applicants would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested. Besides Counsel submitted that under identical circumstances co-accused Mahendra Kumar was granted time to surrender in M.Cr.C. No. 4597/15 and in the alternative, the applicants would be satisfied if the same benefit is granted to them. 5. Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the anticipatory bail of co-accused Mahendrasingh Chouhan in M.Cr.C. No. 4531/15 has been rejected and the applicants are not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. However, on the ground of parity, similar relief as granted to the co-accused Mahendra Kumar is extended to the present applicants. The applicants are, therefore, better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court. Counsel for the applicants has expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately. 7. However, on the ground of parity, similar relief as granted to the co-accused Mahendra Kumar is extended to the present applicants. The applicants are, therefore, better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court. Counsel for the applicants has expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately. 7. In view of the above, the application is partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 25-8-2015 before the Competent Court and they shall file application for regular bail from the Competent Court within the said period, the application shall be considered on the same day of its presentation, in accordance with law. I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court. It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested. In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without reference to this Court. 8. With these directions, the applications are disposed of. 9. Original judgment be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No. 4528/15 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No. 4536/15. 10. C. c. as per rules.