Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/13365/2016 of MATADEEN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 29 December 2016
Matadeen vs. State of M.P. 29/12/2016 Shri Vishal Singh
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1M.Cr.C. No. 13365/2016Matadeen vs. State of M.P.
29/12/2016
Shri Vishal Singh Bhadoriya, counsel for theapplicant.
Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, learned Public Prosecutor forthe respondent/State.
Shri A.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for thecomplainant.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The applicant has an apprehension of his arrestrelating to Crime No. 608/2016 registered at PoliceStation Bahodapur, District Gwalior for the offencepunishable under Section 302, 34 of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicantthat applicant has been falsely implicated in the presentcase. He is maternal uncle of Satyendra who is husbandof the deceased Sonam. It is further submitted thatfrom perusal of the FIR which was lodged by RaviDhakad, who is brother of the deceased Sonam, thepresence of the applicant at the relevant time is notmentioned. It is also not mentioned in the FIR that thedeceased Sonam was seen last time in the company ofthe applicant. It is further submitted that statement ofthe witnesses which were recorded on 04/10/2016 or onsubsequent dates had been made after due deliberation.If the applicant has taken away the deceased along withhim then that fact should have been mentioned in theFIR. It is further submitted that the applicant is agedabout 48 years and there is no possibility of theapplicant fleeing from justice. The applicant assures thisCourt that he will cooperate in the investigation. Underthese circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatorybail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes
2
M.Cr.C. No. 13365/2016Matadeen vs. State of M.P.
the application.
Keeping in view the submissions made by learnedcounsel for the parties and looking to the facts andcircumstances of the case, without expressing anyopinion on the merits of the matter, I am of the viewthat this is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to thepresent applicant. Consequently, application underSection 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, presentapplicant Matadeen shall be released on bail on hisfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only) with a solvent suretyin the like amount to the satisfaction of the ArrestingAuthority (Investigating Officer).
The applicant shall make himself available forinterrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditionsenumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 60days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires,may move an application for regular bail before thecompetent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Vacation Judge