Keshav Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3752 MP

                           1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MCRC.No.36655/2021
                    (Keshav Singh Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 30.07.2021

      Shri Gowri Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Ajay Singh Raghuwanshi, learned Panel Lawyer, for the

respondent/State.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties through Video

Conferencing.

The applicant has filed this first application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. for

grant of anticipatory bail as he has apprehension of his arrest in

connection with Crime No.533/2021 registered at Police Station

Morar, District Gwalior, M.P. for the offences punishable under

Sections 354, 354 (A), 452, 506, of IPC.

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the

case. He has not committed any offence in any manner. He has relied

upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court as well

as the Supreme Court looking to the judgment of the Arnesh Kumar

Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 wherein directions have been

issued regarding decongestions of prisons. It is argued that the

punishment in the aforesaid offences is less than seven years, therefore,

the applicant be enlarged on bail owing to the fact there is some

monetary issues between the parties and the payments have not been

paid, therefore, the false complaint has been made against the

applicant. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.36655/2021 (Keshav Singh Vs. State of M.P.)

be imposed by this Court while considering his application for grant of

bail and also shown his willingness to render his services for the help

of needy during this Covid Pandemic-19. It is further pointed out that

the applicant is a handicapped for which the certificate is filed along

with an application. He has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, State counsel has opposed the bail application

stating that there are specific allegations against the present

applicant regarding commission of offence. The victim has

categorically stated that in her statements recorded under Section

161 of Cr.P.C. as well as in the F.I.R. against the present applicant.

Looking to the statement of the victim, no case for anticipatory bail

is made out. It is submitted that such kind of offences against the

women are increasing in the society and enlarging the applicant on

anticipatory bail will cause adverse influence to the society at large.

In such circumstances, the bail should not be allowed.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow this application.

Accordingly, the application is rejected. Applicant is directed to

surrender and apply for regular bail.

                                                  (Vishal Mishra)
mani                                                  Judge

SUBASRI MANI
2021.07.31
18:20:18
-07'00'