RAJU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first bail application has been filed by the applicants under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.97/2023 registered at Police Station-Daundar District-Sheopur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 323, 294, 506, 342, 452, 327, 34 of IPC. A s per the case of prosecution, on 01/07/2023, at around 1:30 pm at noon Sarvan and Naim Khan were delivering mid- day- meal at Government Middle School, Gandhi Nagar. Applicants Raju, Mahaveer, Ramsingh, Ranjeet entered the school and started abusing Sarvan demanding payment of lawyer's fees of an earlier case between the parties. Sarvan declined to pay it. All the four applicants/accused started manhandling him with hockey sticks and fists. Other co-accused Nepal and Kapur confined Sarvan in a room in the school.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties are close relatives. There is matrimonial dispute between sister of complainant Sarvan and the applicant Raju. Therefore, both the parties had altercation which was given colour of extortion of money. Injured Sarvan has sustained only three abrasions. Nature of injury and the dispute between parties are simple. Investigation is almost complete. No custodial interrogation is required. There is no criminal history reported against the applicants. Applicants are labourer by profession. Both the parties belong to same social status. There is no likelihood of interfering with the investigation or tampering with the evidence. There is no likelihood of their absconding leaving behind their family to suffer. It is further submitted that co-accused Nepal and Kapur Banjara have been extended benefit of anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the prayer on the ground that there are direct allegations of involvement of the applicants in the alleged offence.

(3.) Heard learned learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and overall circumstances of the case but without commencing on merits of the case, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Thus, the application is allowed.