Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Patidar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 16th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24075 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JITENDRA PATIDAR S/O MR. RAJARAM PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE
RAMPUR, TEHSIL DHAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIBHOR KHANDELWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SADALPUR,
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI KAUSHAL SISODIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
[OBJ].
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard.
2. This is the first bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed on
behalf of the applicant. The applicant is apprehending his arrest connection
with Crime No.163/2023, registered at police station Sadalpur, District Dhar,
for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2-N) and 506 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR registered
against the applicant under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, the
incident alleged by the complainant is of year 2018 and the second incident
alleged is also of 4.12.2022, but the FIR is registered on 23.4.2023. The
applicant is innocent and has not committed any crime. He has no past
criminal antecedents. On these grounds, applicant has prayed for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and has
submitted that proclamation has been issued against the applicant and
therefore, this bail application is not maintainable. He has relied upon the case
of Lavesh vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 73.
5. Learned counsel for the objector has supported the arguments advanced
by the counsel for the respondent/State.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under Sections 82 and 83
of the Cr.P.C, it only the Court which can issue proclamation against an
accused and reward is issued by the Police Officer under Regulation 80 of the
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation is not equivalent to a proclamation. He has
relied upon the judgment of this court passed on 12.5.2020 passed in the case
of Balveer Singh Bundela vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in
M.Cr.C.No.5621/2020 and submits that maintainability of an anticipatory bail
is different from entitlement of bail.
7. On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that no proclamation has been
issued in the present case against the applicant and only a reward has been
passed by the police officer. Thus without commenting on the merits of the
case and in view of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the
material collected by the prosecution against him, I deem it to be a fit case for
grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant by the Arresting
Officer, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating
Officer).
9. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police
Officer, as and when required. Applicant shall further abide by the other
conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
10. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.24075/2023, stands
allowed and disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
SS/-
Digitally signed by SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Date: 2023.06.16 18:18:18
+05'30'
