Ram Milan Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6791 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                ON THE 26 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13517 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAM MILAN SAHU S/O SHRI SHIVRAM SAHU, AGED
                          ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
                          BHEDAGHAT CHOWK, P.S. BHEDAGHAT, DISTRICT-
                          JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                          GARHA, DISTRICT- JABALPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI A.S. PATHAK - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

1. This is second application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. Earlier application filed by applicant was considered on merits and was dismissed.

2. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.162/2022, registered at Police Station-Garha, District-Jabalpur (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 451, 384, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 211, 177 and 182 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 4/26/2023 6:30:55 PM

was arrested in Crime No.494/2018 on 12.08.2018 and he remained behind bar since 03.11.2018. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that applicant could have been a witness in Ikrarnama dated 23.08.2018. In view of aforesaid, applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4. Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that stamp paper was purchased on 05.06.2020 and anti-dated Ikrarnama was prepared. Ikrarnama may have been prepared after 05.06.2020 on back date of 23.08.2018. Ikrarnama itself was not prepared on the date when it was said to be executed. In view of same, it cannot be said that applicant was behind bar, therefore, he could not be witness

on said Ikrarnama.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, repeat anticipatory bail application filed by applicant is dismissed.

7. As offence is punishable up to period of seven years, therefore, it is discretion of investigating agency whether they want to arrest the applicant or not in light of judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 4/26/2023 6:30:55 PM