Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 812 (MP)

ARVIND KUMAR KATRE v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-11-20

VISHAL MISHRA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri R. K. Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant. Shri Purushottam Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. Shri Arun Dudawat, counsel for the complainant. 2. Heard on I.A.No. 8755/2019, which is an application under section 301(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for permitting the learned counsel for the complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the State counsel. 4. Case diary is available. 5. This is first application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 325/2019 registered by Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 406 of Indian Penal Code. 7. It is alleged by the counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution story the role assigned to the present applicant is that he accompanied the main accused to visit the mines. There is no financial transaction between the present applicant and the complainant. There is no document to show that there is a partnership between the present applicant and the complainant. He has unnecessary been roped into the criminal offence in the matter. He is ready to co-operate in the investigation and prays for grant of bail. 8. Per contra counsel for the State as well as counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the bail application stating that he is absconding and not co-operating in the investigation. The present applicant and the another culprit are absconding and not co-operating in the investigation. Counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Court to the document filed by him and has established the fact that there is actual transaction of amount to the tune of Rs. 12 Lakhs with the present applicant. Investigation is pending in the matter. They have prayed for rejection of the application. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that investigation is pending in the matter, there is a transaction been shown with the present applicant and the fact that he is not co-operating in the investigation, this Court is not inclined to allow this bail application. Hence, it is hereby dismissed.