Vaibhav Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12314 MP

                                                  1
                IN         THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                         AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                      ON THE 2 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30748 of 2023

              BETWEEN:-
              VAIBHAV GUPTA S/O SHRI ASHOK GUPTA, AGED
              ABOUT 26 YEARS, SHASTRI COLONY A BLOCK THANA
              DEHAT DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....APPLICANT
              (SHRI PRADEEP KATARE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) .

              AND
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
              STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION DEHAT DISTRICT
              BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
              ( MS. ANKITA MATHUR-P.P.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
              GENERAL).
              (MS. HARSHITA MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
              [COMP].

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

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties in this first bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and perused the case diary.

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.117/2022 registered at Police Station- Dehat, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR been falsely implicated. During the investigation, his statement was recorded Signing time: 03-08-2023 06:04:58 PM

under section 161 of Cr.P.C. as a prosecution witness. However, on the application filed under section 319 of Cr.P.C, he has been arrayed as accused. It is further argued that after taking cognizance against the present applicant under section 302/34 of IPC, learned trial court has issued summon. However, a note is put on the summon that on his appearance he may be arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Vikas vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 172 and contended that in case where cognizance is taken under section 319 of Cr.P.C. bailable warrant or summon should be issued to secure appearance of the accused. Further submission is that applicant is

permanent resident of the Dist. Bhind and there are no chances of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He shall abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to further investigate the matter in connection with his involvement in the crime. It is further argued that learned trial Court has taken cognizance under section 302/34 of IPC against the present applicant/accused in view of his involvement in the crime. Prima facie sufficient evidence are available against the present applicant and therefore, in the light of gravity of offence, he should not be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

Perusal of the record as well as case diary reveal that during investigation Signature Not Verified statement of present applicant/accused was recorded as a prosecution witness Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 03-08-2023 06:04:58 PM under section 161 of Cr.P.C. However, after recording some evidence before

trial court, learned trial court has taken cognizance under section 319 of Cr.P.C. against him. It is also not in dispute that Cr.R. No. 2990/2023 filed before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance has been dismissed vide order dated 26/07/2023. In view of the allegations made against present applicant /accused his custodial interrogation may be required in this case, therefore, this is not a fit case, in which, anticipatory bail can be granted to the present applicant/accused.

Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant/accused is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Durgekar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 03-08-2023 06:04:58 PM