Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakti Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 64656/2021
(SHAKTI KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 12/01/2022
Ms. Uma Kushwah, Counsel for the applicant
Shri Neelesh Tomar, Counsel for State.
Shri Brijesh Tyagi, Counsel for complainant.
Case Diary is available.
This first application under Section 438 of CrPC has been filed
for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime
No.241/2021 registered at Police Station - Billowa, District Gwalior
for offence punishable under Sections 458, 323, 294, 506, 34 and 326
of IPC.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that applicant is
an old person aged about 60 years. The FIR was lodged by an eye
witness, namely, Rakesh alleging that on 15.10.2021 at about 10:15
pm, the injured Kallu @ Ramesh Yadav was sitting inside the hotel. At
that time, three persons came in a car. Two persons started abusing
him. When Ramesh Yadav objected to it, then one person gave lathi
blow on the head of Kallu @ Ramesh Yadav. As a result, he sustained
injury. Although, Kallu @ Ramesh Yadav was injured but he
succeeded in catching hold of two persons. Thereafter, the third person
assaulted the injured by means of some pointed article. As a result, he
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 64656/2021
(SHAKTI KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
sustained injury below the right eye. The persons who had came in a
car continuously assaulted Kallu @ Ramesh Yadav by fists and blows.
As a result, he sustained injury. It is submitted by Counsel for
applicant that additional documents have been filed along-with I.A.
No.496/2022 from which it is clear that old enmity was going on
between the parties. In the FIR, the names of the assailants were not
mentioned. The applicant is ready and willing to abide by any
stringent condition which may be imposed by the Court and applicant
is ready to cooperate in the investigation. The trial is likely to take
sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his absconding or
tampering with prosecution case.
Per Contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the State
Counsel as well as complainant. It is submitted by Counsel for State
that the police statement of injured Kallu @ Ramesh Yadav was
recorded on 23.10.2021 in which he has specifically stated that the
applicant had also come and had abused him. However, the allegation
of assaulting the injured by lathi and pointed article is not against the
applicant. Further when a specific question was put to the State
Counsel as to why there is a delay in recording the police statement
then it was replied that since he was admitted in hospital, therefore,
the police statement of injured was not recorded. When a specific
question was put as to whether injured was unconscious, then except
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 64656/2021
(SHAKTI KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
referring to 161 Cr.P.C statement, the Counsel for State could not
point out anything from the MLC of the injured to show that he was
brought to the hospital in an unconscious condition.
Similarly, when a specific question was put to Shri Brijesh
Tyagi, as to whether the injured remained unconscious or not then
instead of answering the query, he continuously referred to police
statement of injured in which he has claimed that after the assault, the
injured had fallen unconscious.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The applicant is aged about 60 years. There is already an enmity
between the parties. In the FIR, the names of assailants were not
mentioned. Even there is no plausible explanation for delay in
recording the police statement of the injured. He might have been
admitted in the hospital but the Police could have recorded his
statement which was not done.
Considering the totality of 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 19.01.2022, 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
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 64656/2021
(SHAKTI KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Officer (Investigating Officer).
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by
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
19.01.2022, 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
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2022.01.12
18:39:46 +05'30'
