PULKIT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested on 06.08.2021, by Police Station- Jhansi Road, District- Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.360/2021, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 506, 195, 120-B, 211 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against the applicant and he is a young boy aged 19 years, suffering confinement since 06.08.2021 on false pretext. It is further submitted that his name does not figure in FIR and as per allegation as contained in statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., only role of applicant is that he was instrumental in organizing meeting between accused persons namely Aniket Shivhare and Prithviraj Chouhan. Nothing less, nothing more. Alleged commission of offence to implicate Saransh Tiwari is over other co- accused, not over the present applicant. Counsel for the applicant further referred the date of educational certificate attached with the application to demonstrate that the applicant is meritorious student and passed all examinations with distinction. Applicant is a student of LLB and confinement may adversely affect the future of young boy. Even otherwise, allegation against the applicant is not of offence under Section 307 of IPC, therefore, a chance may be given to him to reform himself and for course correction, so that, he would mend his ways and become a better citizen. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and would make himself available as and when required. He would not be a source of embarrassment or harassment to the complainant. He would not move in the vicinity of complainant party. He further intends to perform community service voluntarily by serving the environment and National/Social cause by contributing his part voluntarily to purge his misdeeds and come out from bad company. Under these grounds, he prayed for bail.

(3.) Learned PL for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that allegation is against the applicant that he conducted meeting between Aniket Shivhare and Prithviraj Chouhan and he should have avoid such meeting. Beside that other allegations are not against the applicant. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this application.