Chhinge @ Arvind Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 534 MP

                                            01

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       MCRC-7401-2021
       (Chhinge @ Arvind Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. )

Gwalior, Dated: 08/03/2021
      Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned Deputy Advocate General,

for respondent/State.

Shri S.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the complainant.

I.A.No.4003/2021, an application for urgent hearing is taken up,

considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application.

Heard on I.A.No.5113/2021, an application under Section 301(2)

of Cr.P.C. for assisting the prosecution.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Shri S.S. Parihar, learned counsel and his associates are permitted to

assist the prosecution on behalf of the complainant.

This is the first bail application under section 438 of CrPC filed

by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.527/2019 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Bhind (M.P.)

for offence under Sections 302, 201 read with section 120-B of I.P.C.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Chhinge @

Arvind Singh Bhadoriya that the applicant has falsely been implicated

in this case and he is innocent. There is no named FIR and no evidence

is against the present applicant. The present applicant has been

implicated in this case only on the basis of memorandum given by the

co-accused. No firearm has been recovered from the custody of the

present applicant. It is further submitted that the statements given under

Section 27 of Evidence Act is not admissible in the evidence. In support

of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the

judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhvinder

Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab [(1994)5 SCC 152]. Hence,

prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant have

vehemently opposed the bail and have submitted that the case is

registered under Sections 302, 201 read with section 120-B of I.P.C and

the incident is of the years 2019 and charge-sheet has been filed despite

the present applicant is still absconding. Hence, prayed for rejection of

the anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.

The case is registered under Sections 302, 201 read with section

120-B of I.P.C. Considering the facts mentioned in the case diary and

looking to the gravity of offence as firearm was used for commission of

offence, this court is not inclined to grant of anticipatory bail to the

present applicant.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed under section

438 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.

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

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge Monika* MONIKA SHARMA 2021.03.09 16:31:57 +05'30'