RAGHVENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first application filed by the applicant under Sec. 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.408/2025 registered at Police Station - Kotma, District Anuppur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Ss. 118(3), 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of B.N.S.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he committed marpeet with the complainant and cause grievous injury. On the basis of which, offence has been registered against the applicant under the aforesaid Sec. .

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Present applicant is the practitioner Lawyer and he is practicing in Kotma Court. On the date of incident, applicant was in the Court premises of Kotma and President of Bar Association Kotma has also given a letter to the police that on the date of incident, present applicant was in the court premises which can be checked through CCTV footage. It is submitted that there was civil dispute between the applicant and complaiant. Civil suit was decreed in favour of father of applicant and possession of the house was given to him on 23/7/2025, but thereafter, complainant threatened the applicant and his father to dispossess the property otherwise he will falsely implicate them. Applicant has given complainants to the police on 25/7/2025 and 7/8/2025. It is further submitted that the dispute took place between both the parties due to possession of house, in that dispute, they sustained injuries, therefore, on the same day i.e. 10/9/2025 at about 5:00 pm, father of applicant lodged the complaint against the complainant, but police is not taking any action against him. On the same day, complainant has also lodged the present FIR at about 5:30 pm, in which present applicant was falsely implicated. It is further submitted the complainant was the Driver in Police Station, Kotma, therefore, Kotma Police favoured the complainant, due to which, present applicant was falsely implicated. There is no criminal record of applicant. There is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.