NAVEEN GOYAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is preferred under section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, as he is under apprehension Of his arrest in connection of Crime No. 51 /2015 registered at Police Station, Rithorkala, Morena for the offence under sections 394,412,201 of IPC section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and section 25/27 or Arms Act.

(2.) APPLICANT 's counsel after taking us through the rejection order of trial Court argued that on taking into consideration the entire evidence collected by Investigating agency in the case diary even then prima facie any of the alleged offence are not made out against the applicant. In continuation he said that undisputedly, the applicant has been implicated in the case on the background that he had purchased the stolen articles of the alleged dacoity from the coaccused. In such premises, apparently the offence of section 394 and 201 of IPC as well as section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and section 25/27 of Arms Act are not made out against the applicant. So far as section 412 of IPC is concerned, by reading out the provisions of the same, he said that such section is related to articles of the dacoity and not the articles of the robbery and it is undisputed fact that according to the FIR and in the case diary it was not a case of -dacoity. In any case, it was a prima facie case of robbery and in such premises, it could not be deemed that the applicant has committed such offences. He also said that to infer the offence of the possession of the stolen articles of the daocity, prima facie it should be established in the matter that such property came in possession of the accused knowingly that the same was stolen property of such dacoity and prayed for extending the anticipatory bail to the applicant by allowing this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand responding the aforesaid argument, Shri Agarwal learned Panel Lawyer by referring some papers of the case diary and interrogation statements of the witnesses of Girraj Paledar and Bharat Paledar said that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to show the involvement of the applicant as possession holder of the stolen articles of the alleged robbery carried out by the co -accused of the case. According to his further submission the case of the robbery is included in the word 'dacoity ' because there is only difference that if the offence of robbery committed by less than five persons then it is so called 'robbery ' and if the offence committed by more than five or more persons then it could be said to be a dacoity. In this regard he also said that herein mere on account of the nomenclature of the alleged offence the applicant could not be extended the benefit of the anticipatory specially when sufficient prima facie evidence are available against him for which custodial interrogation is also required and prayed for dismissal of the petition.