BATTULAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time of first application some important and material facts could not be placed before this Court for consideration. Those facts are that applicant No. 2 Omprakash who is the son of applicant No. 1 Battulal, is an eye witness in a murder case vide Crime No. 161/02, in which three accused persons viz Chhagia, Madhu @ Madhusudan and Mahesh are involved.

(2.) THIS incident has taken place on 7.7.2002. Thereafter they pressurized applicant No. 2 Omprakash to change his statement and for not giving evidence against them in the Court. As he refused to succumb to their desire, they lodged a false report of cheating through Babulal, who is the son-in-law of accused Chhogia. The accused Chhogia has been released and thereafter also started threatening the applicant and his father through his son-in-law. Against the accused persons the applicants have lodged a report on 25.7.2002 vide Crime No. 179/02, which has been registered in the same police station and the police has registered offences u/s. 294, 506/34 IPC against the accused persons named Suresh, Chhogia, Prahlad, Akhilesh and Devilal. Devilal is the son of Babulal, who is the son - in-law of Chhogia. Babulal is the complainant in the present case against the applicants.

(3.) ALL the above facts are very alarming. All the three crimes have been registered by the same police station vide crime No. 161/2002 for the offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC, Crime No., 173/02 for the offence punishable u/s 294, 506/34 IPC and Crime No. 295/02 of this bail application for the offence punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468 IPC. But the police has not taken into consideration all these matters and also not extended any protection to eye witness applicant No. 2 Omprakash. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed for a period of 4 months from today upto 6th July, 2003.