Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.6976/2022
Ashok Gurjar vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior, Dated : 18/02/2022
Shri Ravi Dwivedi, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri S.P.S. Gurjar, Counsel for the complainant.
Case diary is available.
This second application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for grant of anticipatory bail. The first application was dismissed
as withdrawn by order dated 2.2.2022 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.5461/2022.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.699/2021 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District
Gwalior for offence under Sections 307, 34 of IPC.
This repeat application has been filed for grant of anticipatory
bail as the first bail application was rejected by order dated 2.2.2022
passed in M.Cr.C.No.5461/2022 mainly on the ground that the State
Counsel had pointed out that the applicant has a criminal history and
Crime No.161/2013 has been registered against him at Police Station
Maharajpura, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 294, 323,
506, 34 of IPC.
On 8.2.2022, a statement was made by the counsel for the
applicant that the information given by the State Counsel on earlier
occasion was incorrect and the applicant has no criminal history.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.6976/2022
Ashok Gurjar vs. State of M.P.
When the Court perused the case diary, then it was found that
the details of the criminal antecedents of the applicant were corrected
by applying whitener and, accordingly, SHO, Police Station
Maharajpura was directed to produce the case diary of Crime
No.161/2013. The case diary of Crime No.161/2013 is also available
with the State Counsel.
It is submitted by Shri Singh that the information which was
given by the Investigating Officer at the time of consideration of
M.Cr.C.No.5461/2022 was incorrect and the said mistake had
occurred because of similarity in names but later on it was found that
the person who was accused in Crime No.161/2013 was a different
person because his father's name is different and thus it is submitted
that the applicant has no criminal history.
The explanation given by the SHO, Police Station Maharajpura,
District Gwalior is accepted but the SHO, Police Station Maharajpura,
District Gwalior must realize that life and liberty of a person is also of
a paramount consideration and before sending the information they
must verify that the said information is correct or not.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to
the prosecution case, on 26.12.2021 complainant was going to the
shop of Chawala Chicken along with his friend to purchase the food.
It is alleged that co-accused Himanshu Sharma on the question of old
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.6976/2022
Ashok Gurjar vs. State of M.P.
enmity fired at him causing injury on the ankle of his left leg. The co-
accused Dinesh Gurjar and Sukhveer Kaurav were instigating that the
complainant should be killed. It is submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated. In fact, a self-inflicted injury on his own ankle
has been caused by the complainant. Even otherwise, there is no
allegation of firing against him. It is further submitted that this Court
by orders dated 24.1.2022 and 4.2.2022 passed in
M.Cr.C.Nos.4347/2022 and 5999/2022 has granted bail to the co-
accused Dinesh Gurjar and Sukhveer Kaurav under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the
counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the
complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without
commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed
subject to condition that if the applicant appears before the
Investigating Officer (Arresting Officer) on or before 25.2.2022, he
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating
Officer).
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.6976/2022
Ashok Gurjar vs. State of M.P.
the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall further abide
by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438
of Cr. P. C.
It is made clear that in case if the applicant fails to appear
before the Investigating Officer (Arresting Authority) on or before
25.2.2022, then this order shall lose its effect and the Investigating
Officer shall be at liberty to take him in custody.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
bail be sent to the complainant.
CC as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2022.02.18 16:12:28 +05'30'
