ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a case arising out of Crime No. 62/2014 registered at Police Station, Khurai, District Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B/34 of IPC under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter in short "the Code", this Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2-Sheel Kumar vide order dated 5-6-2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7141/2014 and directed that respondent No. 2 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer. By filing this application, the applicant-Ashok Singh seeks cancellation of above mentioned anticipatory bail order. Above mentioned crime is registered on the complaint lodged by applicant-Ashok Singh regarding the kidnapping of his 16 years aged niece. It is specifically alleged against the respondent No. 2 that being brother-in-law of the main accused-Surendra Tiwari and other two co-accused Amit Tiwari and Sudarshan Tiwari provided help for abducting the minor prosecutrix and also provided shelter. The applicant has also preferred to file a writ petition (Habeas Corpus). Vide order dated 14-2-2014 passed in W.P. No. 2711/2014, the Writ Court directed the respondent No. 1/State to file report with respect to the tress out the minor prosecutrix and produced the corpus before the Writ Court.

(2.) Shri P.S. Tomar, learned Counsel for the applicant on the strength of above facts submitted that the prima facie offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC is made out against the respondent No. 2, who willingly provided shelter to the accused Surendra Tiwari, hence, enlarging the respondent No. 2 on anticipatory bail vide order dated 5-6-2014 was erroneous and requires cancellation. Learned Counsel for the applicant also stressed on the point that the order dated 14-2-2014 of the Writ Court is suppressed by the respondent No. 2 during the proceedings of anticipatory bail, hence, order dated 5-6-2014 be cancelled.

(3.) Per contra, Shri B.J. Chourasiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that after due appreciation of collected prosecution evidence, anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent No. 2, hence no question arises for cancellation.