Mayank Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2780 MP

                                    1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        M.Cr.C.No.30558/2021
                    (Mayank Bharti Vs. State of M.P. )

Gwalior, Dated:-28.6.2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri   Vinod      Pathak,   learned   Panel   Lawyer       for   the

respondent/State.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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

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

connection with Crime No.60/2021 registered at Police Station

Chirula, District Datia for the offences punishable under Section 392

of IPC and section 11 and 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not

committed any offence in any manner. It is submitted that the incident

is said to have taken place on 29.2.2021 at 9:30 PM when the accused

persons vehicle Wagon-R No.M.P.32-C-1631 came from Jhansi side

and parked the vehicle in VIP line at Toll Plaza and thereafter the

incident has taken place at Toll Plaza. He has drawn attention of this

Court to the complaint which is made on 29.5.2021 to the Police

Authorities Annexure A/2 which is the FIR registered at Crime

No.60/2021 for offences 392 of IPC and 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act.

It is argued that the FIR was got registered on 30.5.2021 at 23.31

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.30558/2021 (Mayank Bharti Vs. State of M.P. )

hours. He has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure A/5

which is a written complaint made to the Police Station Chirula,

District Datia on 29.5.2021 and has argued that the complaint is said

to be in two pages and the handwriting of both the pages are entirely

different just to implicate the present applicant the second page of the

complaint has been changed which is clearly reflected from the

handwriting and the name of the present applicant has been roped up

in the case. It is submitted that there was an altercation in the Toll

Plaza between the parties, but no such incident regarding the loot

committed at Toll Plaza was done by the present applicant which can

be verified from the CCTV Footage recording which are installed at

the Toll Plaza. They have got obtained the details particulars of the

National Highway Authority of India and has filed the same along

with the petitioner. It is argued that the incident has taken place some

50 to 60 ft. prior to the cash counter of Toll Plaza, therefore, looting

of Toll Plaza is clearly not reflected in the CCTV footage. Apart

from this, other injuries have found to be simple in nature. He is first

offender and prays for grant of bail. He is ready to abide by all the

terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while

considering the application for grant of bail. He has further relied

upon the judgments passed in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. State of

M.P., 2003 (3) M.P.H.T. 1 (NOC) and by the Full Bench in the case

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.30558/2021 (Mayank Bharti Vs. State of M.P. )

of Gulabchand Kannoolal Vs. State of M.P. and others, 1982

M.P.L.J. 7 to substantiate the arguments regarding the fact that the

offence under section 392 of IPC is not made out in the facts and

circumstances of the case and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

Per contra counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the

application stating that there are specific name in the complaint and

subsequently in the FIR against the present applicant the injuries

which have been inflicted are medically corroborated. It is argued

that the pen-drive which has been recovered by the police authorities

during investigation clearly shows the fact that the applicant is

actively participated in commission of offence. He is still absconding

in the matter and not cooperated with the prosecution. The applicant

is filed seeking anticipatory bail and looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case the same is not permissible in view of

section 5 of the M.P. D.V.P.K. Act when there is a grave objection on

the grant of application for grant of bail on anticipatory basis. It is

argued that as far as the conflict with respect to the information given

on police station and registration of FIR are concerned it is contended

that the complaint was made on 29.5.2021 and thereafter the injured

were medically treated and on the basis of the written complaint the

FIR was lodged on 30.5.2021 after inquring the matter. In such

circumstances, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. He has

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.30558/2021 (Mayank Bharti Vs. State of M.P. )

prayed for dismissal of the application.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court does not deem it appropriate to allow this application for grant

of anticipatory bail. The applicant is directed to surrender and apply

for regular bail.

Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant is dismissed.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2021.07.01 17:17:53 +05'30'