Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/53387/2020 of SAURABH BHARGAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-53387-2020 (SAURABH BHARGAVA Vs THE STATE OF
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.
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-53387-2020
(SAURABH BHARGAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 31/12/2020
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Padamshri Agarwal, learned Panel Lawyer for therespondent/State.
Matter is heard through video conferencing.
I.A. No.25533/2020, an application for urgent hearing istaken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentionedtherein.
This is the first bail application under section 438 of CrPCfiled by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection withCrime No.729/2020 registered at Police Station Karera, DistrictShivpuri (M.P.) for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) ofPrevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-SaurabhBhargava that the applicant is Mediakarmi (Patrakar). He isinnocent and he has not committed any offence. He inquired thematter which was registered against the complainant due to whichhe has falsely been implicated in this case. The case is registeredagainst the applicant under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCRC-53387-2020
(SAURABH BHARGAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC andthe maximum punishment for alleged offence is 5 years ofincarceration. The applicant has good reputation in the society.Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bailand has submitted that the case is registered under sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-Bof IPC and the present applicant has also inflicted injuries to thecomplainant in this case while committing aforesaid offences,hence prayed for rejection of the anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted thatthere is no allegation of inflecting any injury to the complainant inFIR. Therefore, no case is made out against the present applicant,the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Perused the record available.
The case is registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) ofPrevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC,wherein allegation is of taking bribe of Rs.4 lakhs and the presentapplicant is involved in the matter with other government servants.
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCRC-53387-2020(SAURABH BHARGAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Hence looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed undersection 438of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
Monika
MONIKA SHARMA 2021.01.01 12:14:30 +05'30'
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)V. Judge