Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3679/2024 of LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3679 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
LAXMI NARAYAN SHIVHARE S/O SHRI GYASI RAMSHIVHARE, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:SHARAB KAROBARI B-17 TANSEN ROAD, ASHOKBIHAR, AJAYPUR GIRRD GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY MR. SHOORVEER SINGH CHAHAR - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION CITY KOTWALI DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY MR. ROHIT MISHRA - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This application coming on for Admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
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.
ORDER
This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 438 ofthe Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.83 of 2000registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offenceunder Sections 34 and 36 of Excise Act. His first application was dismissed aswithdrawn vide order dated 29.12.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 54428 of 2023.
Learned counsel for the applicant - accused argued that applicant isinnocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no evidence against him toimplicate in this crime in view of the judgment of learned Trial Court passed in respect to co-accused. Applicant is the permanent resident of District Gwalior(M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with theprosecution evidence. Hence, prayed to allow the anticipatory bail applicationof the applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bailapplication and argued that applicant-accused has breached the conditions ofbail granted to him which is evident from the impugned order. Initially learnedtrial Court had granted bail to the applicant in the year 2000, thereafter, hebreached the condition for thrice and therefore, perpetual warrants of arrest hasbeen issued against the present applicant. It is further argued that applicant is stilabsconding and is not cooperating in the investigation. Under thesecircumstances, applicant is not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the case diary.
It would not be desirable to enter into merits of the rival contentions atthis juncture. It is well settled that the considerations governing grant ofanticipatory bail are altogether different from those relevant for the prayer forregular bail.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,looking to the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and manner inwhich the applicant/accused is involved in the offence, as alleged by theprosecution, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Consequently, the present bail application is hereby dismissed.