Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dani Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 MCRC-52342-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 52342 of 2021
(DANI MEENA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-11-2021
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mayank Sharma,
counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anshul Mishra, panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
This is the first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. by the applicant. He is apprehending his arrest in connection with
Crime No.645/2021, registered at Police Station Bairasiya, Bhopal, in relation
to the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code.
It is argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He
has not committed any offence in any manner. It is a case of free fight and
there are general allegations against all the accused persons. It is argued that
there is no recovery from the present applicant. Therefore, the involvement of
the applicant in connection with the offence is doubtful. He has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
o f Pathubha Govindji Rathod and another Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 363; wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that in case of free fight, the individual or specific role assigned to each
one of them is required to be seen. It is submitted that the prosecution could
not point out the specific overt act of the present applicant in commission of
the offence. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Counsel
for the applicant has brought to the notice of this Court that there is a cross
case registered against the complainant party vide Crime No.642/2021 for the
offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 323, 440, 427 and
506 of IPC; and later on, offence under Section 302 of IPC was added;
wherein, the applicant party sustained injuries and Naval Singh Meena, who
was the family member of the applicant has succumbed to his injuries. The
place of incident is also required to be seen i.e. the house of the present
2 MCRC-52342-2021
applicant. The complainant party was aggressor and they came to the house
of the applicant and in defence the injuries were inflicted by the present
applicant. In such circumstances, he has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed
the application stating that there is active participation of the applicant in the
commission of offence. There is a named FIR against the applicant. He is
also a history-sheeter having another case registered against him under Crime
No.269/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34
of IPC registered at Police Station Bairasiya, Bhopal. It is argued that other
co-accused persons are yet to surrender. As a result of the fight between the
parties the death has taken place. In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed for
rejection of anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.
From the records, it is seen that no specific overt act has been
attributed which could be pointed out by the State counsel to the present
applicant. It is a case of free fight and the individual act is required to be seen
as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pathubha Govindji
Rathod and another (supra). The State counsel could not point out any
incriminating material against the present applicant to show his involvement in
commission of the offence.
In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this
application for grant of anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest, the applicant is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing a surety bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount
to the satisfaction of arresting officer.
The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the Police Station
Bairasiya, Bhopal in first week of every month and is directed to cooperate in
investigation. In case of failure to cooperate and non-compliance of the
conditions imposed, the bail granted by this Court shall stand rejected
automatically.
3 MCRC-52342-2021
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant/s will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
bond executed by him;
2. The applicant/s will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case
may be;
3 . The applicant/s will not indulge himself/themselves in extending
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade them/her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4 . The applicant/s shall not involve any other offence, in case the
applicant/s indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended
by this Court shall automatically cancelled.
5. The applicant/s will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
6. The applicant/s will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
7 . The applicant/s will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned
Police Station about his/their residential address in the said area and it would
be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of
concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police concerned who
shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.
Application stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
taj
TAJAMMUL
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
HUSSAIN
2.5.4.20=13e90ad4646c5d70faccde1bb306d26684198
011bca27e8bff4922a823a58219,
pseudonym=37D8F5DA146A17B9A1F919285A592F1
435B1C2CC,
KHAN
serialNumber=7791D4712A29D70FB52789F097FA9A
A5E006D51CB9A891A390BA544C1C5BAB9B,
cn=TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN
Date: 2021.11.23 18:00:10 +05'30'
