Mohamman Adil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14959 MP

                                  1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                  ON THE 11 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39513 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
MOHAMMAN ADIL S/O MOHAMMAD ABID, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT 2881
NEAR NOORANI MASJID THAKKAR GRAM THANA
HANUMANTAL     DISTRICT   JABALPUR    (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                                .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ALOK VAGRECHA - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S
HANUMANTAL   DISTRICT JABALPUR  (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI C.P. SINGH PARMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
G.P. TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)

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

This is second application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of code of criminal procedure for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.399/2023 registered at Police Station-Hanumantal, District-Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 307, 34 of the IPC. Earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed in MCRC No.30114/2023.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is

innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. Applicant is a Government servant. Initially allegations were made in FIR that applicant had assaulted with hands and fists. Later on, in FIR it has been stated that applicant has assaulted with Sabbal. Sabbal has been seized from some other person and not from applicant. Applicant has filed complaint against opposite party and counter case has also been registered. In these circumstances, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed and submitted that applicant is named in FIR. Later on, he is said to have assaulted Sadab/victim with Sabbal i.e. iron rod. In these circumstances, applicant may

not be released on anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has relied on judgment passed by Supreme Court in case reported in (1992) 2 SCC 406 {Bhagwan Swaroop Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh} in which considering the right of private defence, applicant was acquitted.

5. At this stage, plea of private defence cannot be considered by this Court. There was free fight between the parties which is evident from arguments made by parties and facts available on record. Applicant is said to have assaulted with a Sabbal i.e. iron rod. Initially it has been stated that he was not armed but there is possibility that during course of fight applicant could lay on his hands on Sabbal and could have assaulted. At this stage, FIR registered against applicant cannot be disbelieved. Judgement relied upon by counsel appearing for applicant will not be applicable at this stage when Court is considering application for grant of anticipatory bail. Said fact is to be seen by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that other party has been released on bail in counter case. Said fact also entitles applicant

for grant of anticipatory bail. Offence which has been registered against applicant is under Section 307 of the IPC and punishable up to life imprisonment. Offence committed by applicant is serious in nature.

5 . Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI JUDGE shabana Date: 2023.09.11 16:13:04 +05'30'