MCRC/13802/2015 of ANUPAM ATRE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 31 December 2015

MCRC-13802-2015

(ANUPAM ATREVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)

31-12-2015

Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the applicant.

Dr. (Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor, for therespondent/State.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter isfinally heard.

Perused the case-diary.

This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 438of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with CrimeNo.236/2012 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior(M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 and149 of IPC.

Learned cousnel for the applicant contended that the applicant wasgranted anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.02.2014 by the courtbelow. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 30.10.2015.On the said date, the counsel for the present applicant enteredappearance by filing vakalatnama. He prayed for time andaccordingly matter was listed on 06.11.2015 before the courtbelow. On 06.11.2015, the applicant and his counsel were notpresent and therefore the bail granted by the court below wascancelled.

Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant contended that theapplicant is a government doctor. Moreover, the court below hadfound the strong case in favour of the applicant and thereforegranted bail to him in February, 2014. Neither there was any allegation against the applicant that he had misused the libertygranted to him nor was it cancelled for that reason. The singularreason for cancellation of bail is non-appearance of the applicanton a single day. Learned counsel for the applicant submits thatduring pendency of the matter before the court below the partieshave also entered into the compromise and a petition in thatregard is pending before this Court i.e. Mcrc No.13089/2015.Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is opposed by the learnedPublic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.Considering the fact that the applicant was given the benefit ofanticipatory bail and the impugned order does not reflect that theapplicant has ever misused such liberty, I find force in thearguments of Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant anddeem it proper to extend the applicant benefit of anticipatory bail.Resultantly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, this application is allowed. It is directed that within fifteendays from today the applicant shall surrender before the trial Courtand thereafter on his furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amountto the satisfaction of trial Court, he be released on bail, subject tocompliance of the conditions enumerated under section 438(2) ofCr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUJOY PAUL)JUDGE