SUNEEL 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 19/6/2023 by Police Station Mehganv, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.230 of 2022 registered for offence punishable under Ss. 323, 294, 324, 452, 506, 336, 147, 148, 149, 326, 459 of IPC.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 19/6/2023 on false pretext. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that sister of applicant, Vandana, is married to Gaurav Sharma, who is one of the family members of the complainant side. Due to some domestic dispute erupted between Vandana and her in-laws, she called the applicant and other family members of her maternal side to solve the disputes where this alleged incident took place. At the instance of present applicant also a cross case has been registered against the complainant side for offence under Ss. 323, 324, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC vide Crime No. 231/2022 at Police Station Mehganv. Earlier, medical examination of complainant side took place in which certain objections were raised by the applicant because he was doubtful about the authenticity of medical examination. Therefore, he filed a petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. vide MCRC No. 49910/2022 for appearance of complainant side before District Medical Board but surprisingly complainant side did not appear before Medical Board for one year and on the basis of previous report, Medical Board gave opinion on 16/6/2023. This whole exercise rendered the case doubtful. Even when complainant side did not appear and police went to take them for medical examination, then scuffle took place which resulted into registration of offence at the instance of police at Police Station Mehganv vide Crime No. 497/2022 under Ss. 353, 332, 186, 506, 147, 148, and 149 of IPC. According to him case is of false implication and just to exert pressure. Applicant does not bear any criminal record. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. He undertakes to cooperate in investigation/trial. He further undertakes not to be source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party in any manner and would not move in the vicinity of complainant party. Thus, prayed for bail.

(3.) Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail application on the ground that CT took place on 26/4/2023 and it denotes fractures . However, he fairly submitted that applicant bear any criminal record. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them.