Mohd. Faizan vs The State Of M.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 4121 MP

                                                                          1                           MCRC-37885-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         MCRC-37885-2021
                                                               (MOHD. FAIZAN Vs THE STATE OF M.P)

                                       2
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 10-08-2021
                                             Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
                                             Shri Satyapal Chadar, learned Government Advocate for the
                                       respondent/State.

This is the first application filed by applicant Mohd. Faizan under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.

T h e applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.290/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District-Satna for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that the applicant along with co-accused person cause injury on the complainant with the help of 'Katta'; however, there is no allegation that the present applicant fired gun shot and only allegation is that he was in company of the co- accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is totally

innocent person having no criminal past. There is no prima-facie case made against the applicant. The only allegation is that the present applicant was present in the place of incident with other co-accused person. It is also submitted that common intention of the applicant for having committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out as the applicant never knew that co-accused Aman was having a "Katta". Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of "Suresh Vs. State of U.P. ", AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1344 and in the case of L.L.Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl) 299, wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that just because applicant was in the company of main accused it could not be said Signature Not Verified SAN that they had shared with him common intention.

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2021.08.11 10:43:46 IST 2 MCRC-37885-2021 Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has made oral objection on this bail application and submitted that the alleged offence is serious in nature and prima-facie there is reason to believe that applicant is involved in this case and therefore anticipatory bail should not be granted to him.

Heard both sides.

Perused the case dairy. The arguments advanced by both the sides and the documents pointed out by the both the parties, have been taken into consideration.

Applicant apprehend in respect of offence attempt to murder, no gun shot sustained by injured is attributed to co-accused Aman but no overt act relates against the applicant.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

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;

Signature Not Verified SAN

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2021.08.11 10:43:46 IST 3 MCRC-37885-2021 of which he is accused.

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

6. The applicant will not leave Indian without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigation Officer, as the case may be.

7. The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned police stations on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till the investigation is completed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE

vai

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2021.08.11 10:43:46 IST