Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/4197/2024 of MADHO SINGH BUNDELA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4197 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MADHO SINGH BUNDELA S/O LATE SHRI KRISHNAPAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST 117 VILLAGE RAWARI DISTRICTDATIA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MR. PRATIP VISORIYA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICESTATION THROUGH POLICE STATION SINAWALDISTRICT DATIA(M.P. ) (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY MR. A.P.S. TOMAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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 first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of theCr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No.133 of 2023 registeredat Police Station Sinawal (Sonagir), District Datia (M.P.) for the offence underSection 420 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant - accused argued that applicant isinnocent and has been falsely implicated. The incident is of the year 2018,however, the FIR was lodged in the year 2013 after a delay of five years. It isfurther argued that applicant has been implicated in this case. No offence under
Section 420 of IPC is made out. One of the complainant Gair Kushwah gave hisstatement before the Court below that no money was demanded by the presentapplicant and he has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the orderimpugned. It is further argued that applicant is the reputed citizen of the societyand if he is sent to jail, his reputation would get diminished. Under thesecircumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bailapplication and argued that present FIR was lodged against the applicant whenin the year 2023 Bharosa Abhiyan was launched by the State Government toenquire about illegal demand of money from the beneficiaries ofPradhanmantra Awas Yojna in which complainant Shivram Yadav and GairKushwah gave their statement that present applicant, who was the thenSarpanch, took Rs.5000/- from them for giving them the benefit of aforesaidgovernment scheme. It is further argued that there is specific allegation againstthe present applicant and investigation is at early stage and 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.
AKS
Consequently, the present bail application is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGE