RISHABH SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case diary is available. This is first application filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.143/2023 registered at Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Ss. 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/3/2023 at about 14-14:30 hours a quarrel took place between Parimal Rajawat, who is the friend of complainant's son Murari and co-accused persons Jeevan Bhadoriya and Raj Bhadoriya on the issue of dumping soil at a plot situated at Sitanagar. Co-accused persons Jeevan Bhadoriya and Raj Bhadoriya threatened Parimal saying that he is behaving as such because of complainant's son Murari. On the same day, at about 23 hours when complainant, his son and other family members were sleeping in their house, they woke up after hearing the fire. They saw co-accused persons, namely, Dillu Lahariya, Raj Baghel, Deepu Kharika, Jeevan Bhadoriya, Dharma Birdhanpura, Raj Bhadoriya, Deepak S/o Rambihari, Golu S/o Ramdhun, Badke @ Manoj S/o Rajbeer alongwith other were standing on the road in front of the gate of their house, out of which Dillu Lahariya, Jeevan Bhadoriya, Deepu Kharika, Dharma Birdhanpura and Deepak Kushwaha were armed with firearm gun and were firing continuously at complainant's house with an intention to kill them, as a result complainant's daughter-in-law Neelam and his nephew Harshit sustained bullet injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, they fled away from the spot. During investigation, it was revealed that applicant was also present on the spot at the time of incident and was involved in the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complainant Avilakh Singh Tomar in his FIR as well as statement recorded during investigation specifically stated that at the time of incident co-accused persons Dillu Lahariya, Raj Baghel, Deepu Kharika, Jeevan Bhadoriya, Dharma Birdhanpura, Raj Bhadoriya and 4 other persons came on the spot and made assault on him and his family members. Neither complainant nor both the injured persons, namely, Harshit and Neelam Tomar in their statements recorded under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. have named the applicant. No specific act has been attributed to the applicant. He has falsely been implicated on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Raj @ Anar Singh. He further submits that co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dtd. 25/8/2023 passed in M.Cr.C.No.37067/2023 and the case of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused. There is no legal evidence against the applicant. Nothing has to be seized from his possession, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that it is apparent from the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses that about 10 persons were present on the spot. Matter is under investigation, therefore, requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant cannot be denied. Offence alleged against him are of serious in nature, therefore, applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR lodged on the basis of written complaint made by the complainant. His name was also not mentioned in the statement of the complainant and injured persons, namely, Neelam and Harshit as well as other prosecution witnesses recorded till 17/6/2023, i.e. after about three months of the incident. In these circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, so also the evidence produced on record against the applicant and also considering the ground of parity, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, in view of this Court, applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail and, accordingly, the application is allowed.