Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2021
Author: Anil Verma
1 MCRC-50323-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-50323-2021
(SAGAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 27-10-2021
Shri Omprakash Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms Seema Maheshwari Pl appearing on behalf of respondent/State.
This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Crime No.323/2021 registered at police station- Juni,
District- Indore for the offence punishable under Section 328, 308 and 34 of
IPC and 49A ,34 of M.P.Excise Act.
02. As per prosecution story, on 30.07.2021 complainant Manish
Rijhwani lodged a report on 27.07.2021 to the effect that on 27.07.2021,
when he was with his brother Tarun in his Factory. Tarun being a habitual
drunkard demanded for liqour and, therefore, Manish asked the present
applicant to procure the same. After consuming the said liquor, when he
woke up next day, suddenly his blood pressure raised. He was immediately
rushed to CHL Hospital from where he has been referred to eye specialist.
Thereafter he was again admitted in CHL Hospital with complaint of swollen
eyes and complete vision loss. Upon this information, offence has been
registered. During investigation, memo of Bunty was recorded u/S 27 of
Evidence Act, where co-accused Naveen, Sonu, Sagar(present applicant),
Pawan etc have also been implicated in the offence. Under such
circumstances, applicant apprehends arrest.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an
innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He has
been made an accused only on the basis of memo of co-accused Bunty
recorded u/S 27 of the Evidence Act which is not admissible in the eyes of
law. He is 34 years old person having good reputation in society. He is
permanent resident of M.P.. Nothing has been recovered from his
Signature Not Verified
SAN
possession. Co-accused Naveen and Sonu have already been enlarged on bail
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2021.10.28 11:54:25 IST
2 MCRC-50323-2021
vide order dated 24.09.2021 and 05.10.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.
45227/2021 and M.Cr.C. No. 48213/2021. Applicant runs business of ready
made garments. He is permanent resident of Burhanpur. Hence, learned
counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. He has
placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Lahriya Vs. State of M.P., reported in
2004(4) MPHT 205.
04.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
bail application and prays for its rejection.
05.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-
diary.
06.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature
and gravity of the allegations and also the fact that victim is alleged to have
lost his vision after consuming the poisonous liquor, but without commenting
upon merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
07. Accordingly, present bail application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. deserves to
be and is hereby rejected.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2021.10.28 11:54:25 IST
