ANSHUL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. This is the first bail application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 2/2/2023 in connection with Crime No.33/2023 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 307, 323, 294, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) A s per the prosecution story, on 23/1/2023 complainant lodged a report that on that day at about 11.00 pm, he was returning back to his house after closing his panipuri tela and when he reached near Pipliiyahana Kankad, at that time present applicant Anshul @ Baarik along with co-accused Saahil and Rahul Chappri and other companions came there and enquired him about their money on being refused by the complainant, they started abusing with filthy language. When the complainant stopped them, then the applicant assaulted with wooden stick, other co-accused persons assaulted by kicks and fists. On hearing the noise, complainant's mother Avanti Giri came there for intervention, thereafter the accused persons left the spot by threatening that they would kill the complainant, if he interfered in their way in future. On the said report, offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused person.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel contended that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. He is in custody since 2/2/2023. Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. FIR has been lodged after a delay of 2 days. Victim did not sustain any bony or fatal injury and as per the report submitted by the hospital he was not admitted in the hospital. Only limited allegations has been levelled against the applicant that he assaulted the complainant wooden stick. He is the permanent resident of Indore district. Investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed and final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Under the above circumstances, prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions, as this Court deems fit and proper. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that seven criminal antecedents have been found against the present applicant for offence under Sec. 323 of IPC. He is an habitual offender, hence, is not entitled to be released on bail.