PRADHUMAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.444 of 2023, registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna (M.P.) for offence punishable under Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506/34 and 307 of IPC. According to the prosecution case, Manoj Dhakad reported to PS - Arond District Guna that there is land dispute between the accused and his family. Around 8'O clock in the night, on 3/7/2023, his uncles Gajendra, Kallu and Bundel Singh had gone to agricultural field, on around 9:30 PM, he went to agricultural field. There he saw that Pushpendra @ Bhura, Praduman, Badal and Geeta Bai armed with lathi were abusing Gajendra, Kallu and Bundel. As he tried to intervene, Pushpendra assaulted with lathi. Other accused assaulted Ruby, Ramabai, Gajendra and Bundel. Kamlesh also arrived on the spot armed with lathi and assaulted Kallu. All the accused threatened to kill them. On such allegations, PS- Aron registered FIR at Crime No.444/2023 for offence punishable under Ss. 294, 323, 324, 506/34 of IPC. On the basis of medical evidence, prosecution for offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC was added. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in the matter.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is aged around 20 years and he has falsely been implicated in the matter. Only allegation against the applicant is to push Kallu during the scuffle. It was a family land dispute which converted into altercation, wherein both the parties have suffered injuries. No criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant. Applicant is an agriculturist by profession. There is no likelihood of his absconding leaving behind his family and home. There is no likelihood interfering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter against the applicant. Jail incarceration on false implication would bring social disrepute and hardship to the young applicant and his family. Applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. The trial would take time to complete. Co-accused persons, namely, Vinod Dhakad and Geeta Bai have already been extended benefit of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dtd. 26/9/2023 and 4/10/2023 passed in MCRC Nos., 43051/2023 and 42668/2023 respectively. The case is identical to the aforesaid co-accused persons. On the ground to parity, applicant also deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence.