Hemu @ Hemendra Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6710 MP

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                 MCRC No.44228/2021
     Hemu @ Hemendra Singh Chouhan Vs. State of MP

Indore: Dated:- 23/10/2021:-

         Shri V.K.Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Rajat
Raghvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
         Shri Salabh Sharma, learned panel lawyer for the respondent

State.

Shri S.K.Vyas, learned senior counsel with Shri Pourush Ranka, learned counsel for the objector.

With the consent, finally heard.

This is first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.699/2021 registered at Police Station- Vijay Nagar, District Indore for the offence punishable under Section 307,294,506,120-B, 34 of IPC.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely arraigned by the respondents. Although the name of the applicant is mentioned in the FIR by stating that applicant was carrying a country made pistol, the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C did not support the said story. The reliance is placed on the statements of injured Arjun Thakur, Mukesh Jaiswal, Mukesh Shivhare and Pintu Bhatia.

Shri V.K.Jain, learned senior counsel submits that a meeting was arranged in which both the parties reached to a fixed destination. During the meeting if anything has taken place, there is no material to suggest that the applicant was carrying a weapon, he instigated anybody to used firearm against the injured Arjun. There was no heated conversation between the applicant and the injured person. The applicant will cooperate with the investigation, he may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

The prayer is opposed by learned panel lawyer by contending 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.44228/2021 Hemu @ Hemendra Singh Chouhan Vs. State of MP

that the applicant has a serious criminal record of 31 cases. His name is there in the FIR.

Shri S.K.Vyas, learned senior counsel for the objector borrowed the same argument relating to the criminal history of the applicant. It is further submitted that in one such case Sessions Case No. 204/2011, the applicant has already been convicted for committing offence under Section 307/34 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Although the appeal of the said judgment dated 28.10.2015 is pending before this Court, fact remains that the applicant has criminal record.

Shri V.K.Jain, learned senior counsel in his rejoinder submission urged that 26 cases out of said 31 cases against the applicant are relating to a period between 1997-2001. There is one criminal case of 2006, two cases of 2008, one case of 2010 and one case of 2014.

In this view of matter, it is prayed that benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. I have heard the parties at length and perused the case diary/challan.

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;

3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.44228/2021 Hemu @ Hemendra Singh Chouhan Vs. State of MP

(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 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 case of the present applicant is tested on the anvil of the principles law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, it cannot be said that the applicant cannot commit the similar 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.44228/2021 Hemu @ Hemendra Singh Chouhan Vs. State of MP

offence because the judgment of conviction shows that the applicant indeed committed similar offence. The nature of accusation are very serious. The applicant has a tainted criminal record. It cannot be said that the applicant cannot flee from justice or he cannot influence the material evidence.

In this view of the matter, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

The MCRC is dismissed.

                                                        (SUJOY PAUL)
                                                            JUDGE

das            REENA PARTHO
               SARKAR
               2021.10.23
               05:18:05 -07'00'