Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1561 (MP)

Bargat v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-19

PRANAY VERMA

body2022
JUDGMENT Pranay Verma, J. - They are heard. Perused the case dairy/challan papers. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application in respect of applicant No.2 Krishna S/o. Bargat Neherta with liberty for him to surrender and seek regular bail. 3. Prayer is allowed and the application is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of applicant No.2. 4. This is first bail application filed by the applicant No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant No.1 is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.574/2022, registered at Police Station Raipuria, Jhabua for the offences punishable under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 and 307 of IPC. 5. As per the prosecution, on 6.11.2022, at about 4.00 PM the complainant Asharam along with his father Shankar and mother Bhawribai were on their field when co-accused Krishna, the applicant No.1 and Shivraj came over there and argued with him as regards land dispute. Krishna assaulted his father with an axe on the head. His mother intervened whereupon Krishna, Bhagoda, the applicant No.1 and Shivraj beat her with legs and slaps. Thereafter they threatened the complainant party and left. Upon the report lodged by the complainant, the applicant No.1 has been implicated for the present offence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant No.1 submits that applicant No.1 is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. There is no allegation against applicant No.1 of assaulting the complainant or his family members with any weapon. The said allegation is upon co-accused Krishna. The applicant No.1 is alleged only to have beaten the mother of the complainant with hands and fists. He is not even stated to have been armed with any weapon. On such grounds, prayer for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to applicant No.1 has been made. 7. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State submitting that in view of the allegations levelled against applicant No.1, he is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 9. The allegations against the applicant No.1 is only of assaulting the mother of the complainant with hands and fists. He is not alleged to have caused any injury to the complainant party and is also not stated to have been armed with any weapon. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary. 9. The allegations against the applicant No.1 is only of assaulting the mother of the complainant with hands and fists. He is not alleged to have caused any injury to the complainant party and is also not stated to have been armed with any weapon. The allegation of assault upon father of the complainant with an axe is on co-accused Krishan. Thus in my opinion, the applicant No.1 deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 10. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant No.1 by the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer). 11. The applicant No.1 shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. Applicant No.1 shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.59822/2022, stands allowed in part and disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.