Dr. Shubham Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1029 MP

   High Court of Madhya Pradesh; Bench At Indore

                        M.Cr.C No.15614/2021
                 (Dr.Shubham Gupta Vs. State of MP)                       1


INDORE; DATED - 24/03/2021
      Shri   Piyush    Mathur,   learned    Senior     counsel     with Shri
Madhusudhan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri   Rakesh     Singh    Bhadoria    learned     counsel    for       the
respondent/State.
      Shri AK Saxena, learned counsel for the objector.
      With the consent, heard finally.
                                 ORDER

This is first application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C for pre-arrest bail of the applicant, an Incharge, Civil Surgeon cum Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, Shajapur arising out of crime no.95/2021 under section 307, 294, 147, 148, 149 IPC and 25 Arms Act registered at police station Kotwali, Shajapur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Government Doctor and is having protection under "The Madhya Pradhesh Chikitsak Tatha Chikitsa Seva Se Sambaddha Vyaktiyon Ki Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2008". The neighbours of the applicant's land assaulted him at his work place and a Safai Karmi namely Rakesh saved him. In turn, Rakesh lodged a police complaint, which is registered at crime no.98/2021 in the concerned police station. In order to save themselves, the opposite party also lodged a complaint, which has became reason to file this application. The applicant has no criminal record, whereas, the complainants have criminal record. Praveen, who allegedly got injured has six criminal cases registered against him. The applicant will not tamper the evidence or material. He will co-operate with the investigation. The nature of injury is not that serious which attracts section 307 of the IPC. The injured Praveen visited various hospitals in order to secure report in his favour. In this backdrop, the applicant may be given anticipatory bail.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh; Bench At Indore

M.Cr.C No.15614/2021

Shri Mathur, learned Senior counsel for the applicant further submits that before the Court below, the applicant was required to file an application under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In furtherance thereof, FIR is lodged against Praveen and Mithun. Mithun has also criminal history and having five criminal cases registered against him.

The prayer is opposed by the learned panel lawyer by placing reliance on the medical report. Same is the stand of Shri AK Saxena, learned counsel for the objector. He submits that considering the nature of injuries, the applicant does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail.

The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the broad factors and parameters for the purpose of deciding an anticipatory bail. The same are as under:-

"112. (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because High Court of Madhya Pradesh; Bench At Indore

M.Cr.C No.15614/2021

over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."

(emphasis supplied) If the case of the present applicant is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid parameters, it would be clear that :-

(i) The applicants is a Government servant and therefore, there is no chance of his fleeing from the justice.

(ii) The applicant has no criminal record, therefore, there exists nothing to suggest that he can commit a crime of similar nature Considering the nature of accusation, the position of the applicant and other relevant facts mentioned hereinabove, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Moreso, when High Court of Madhya Pradesh; Bench At Indore

M.Cr.C No.15614/2021

in para no.113 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that a person may be sent to custody when there exists no other option.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest or surrender before the police within a month of this order, the applicant Dr.Shubham Gupta S/o Babulal Gupta shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned. The applicant would abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2021.03.25 10:24:16 +05'30'