Devendra Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1453 MP

                                                                         1                            MCRC-2255-2021
                                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        MCRC-2255-2021
                                                      (DEVENDRA RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                                      Jabalpur, Dated : 09-04-2021
                                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                            Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan Gujar, learned
                                      counsel for the applicant.
                                            Shri Devendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant Devendra Rathore apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.825/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 19/10/2020 deceased Badal Patel, son of Shrawan Patel committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. It is alleged that the deceased was working in the shop of applicant Devendra Rathore. He used to harass the deceased and on 19/10/2020 applicant Devendra Rathore and co-accused Vivek Rathore assaulted the deceased,

due to which he committed suicide.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. The deceased was working in the shop which was run by the son of the applicant i.e., co-accused Vivek Rathore and not the applicant. From the allegation, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant is suffering from paralysis and he is unable to walk. Applicant has no criminal past and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial, hence prayed for release of the applicant on anticipatory bail. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgments passed in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433, Vaijnath Signature Not Verified SAN Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2021.04.09 15:35:10 IST 2 MCRC-2255-2021 (2018) 7 SCC 781 and Ude Singh and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record to connect the applicant with the offence in question, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant has no criminal past, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest by the Police in the aforesaid case, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Signature Not Verified SAN C.C. as per rules.

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.04.09 15:35:10 IST
                                              3              MCRC-2255-2021
                                                 (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
                                                        JUDGE
                                      (ra)




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2021.04.09 15:35:10 IST