RAJESH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON -applicant No.3, Harilal Arora was given anticipatory bail in Crime No. 95/93 for offence under section 394 I.P .C. of Police Station Bahodapur by order dated 27.7.1993 by Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior Shri N.D. Goyal. Aggrieved by the order the complainant has filed the present revision. The impugned order is seen. The alleged incident arose because complainant Rajesh had gone to consume liquor at the wine shop of non -applicant No.3 Harilal Arora. A dispute about price of the liquor consumed by the complainant appears to have taken place, which is said to have culminated in a scuffle in which it is said that the complainant's gold chain and Rs. 350/ - were robbed. One of the accused, namely, Rajesh, who is son of Harilal Arora, was given bail by Shri N.D. Goyal by order dated 25.6.1993. Considering the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence and previous bail granted to one accused, it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised his discretion improperly by giving anticipatory bail to Harilal Arora by the impugned order. It would have been proper to impose one more condition to the anticipatory bail besides the condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It would have been proper to direct as an additional condition that Harilal Arora would surrender himself to the police for a brief period to enable the police to get discovery of alleged stolen property made by him.

(2.) SHRI Pateriya argued that after this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of anticipatory bail by order dated 5.8.1993, non -applicant No.3 Harilal Arora purposely appeared before the Court of the Magistrate and get his bail done. Harilal Arora has in his reply, explained that he was not aware of this Court's order nor was informed about the same by the police. He has further explained that when he felt extremely harassed by the police which was not giving him bail, he appeared before the Court of the Magistrate and get his bail done. Harilal Arora has also stated that he is an income -tax payee and quite well to do person. Revision disposed of Arun Pateria for applicant; Govind Singh Govt. Advocate for State; Rakesh Saxena for respondent No.3.