DEEPU Vs. STATE OF M .P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Perused the case diary. This is first application under section 438 of CrPC filed by the applicant Deepu alias Deepak for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 17/07 registered at PS Pahargarh, District Morena for committing offences punishable under sectionds 302, 147,148,149, 506B and 307 of IPC.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is a property dispute in respect of 16 Bighas of land situated in Village Saguari and in spite of stay order passed by the trial Court, the complainant party encroached the land and, therefore, dispute arose between both the parties. Cross-case has been registered by the applicant against Kamlesh, Ashok, Awadesh, Akhilesh and Ramakhtiyar on the same day in the FIR of cross- case of crime No. 18/07, the applicant very specifically stated that Bharat Sharma, Ghanshyam, Giriraj, Lakhan and Pritam were present on the spot and the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR because he was not present at the time of the incident which occurred on 16.2.2007. It is further submitted that applicant is son of the main accused Giriraj and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. As per prosecution story, the applicant was armed with Lathi and caused injuries to Ashok and Akhilesh. Other co-accused persons also armed with Lathi and caused injuries to Ashok, Awadesh and Akhilesh. As per medical report, all the injuries of Ashok, Awadesh and Akhilesh are caused by hard and blunt object and are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the applicant futher submits that in Crime Case No. 17/07, case has been registered against six persons out of which three persons were armed with fire arms and three persons were armed with Lathi. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is a meritorious student and is 18 1/2 years of age and there is no previous criminal history. He has also submitted marksheet of middle school and higher secondary school of the applicant. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that applicant is directly involved in the alleged offence and named FIR has been lodged against him, and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that he is not involved in the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the complainant supported the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the FIR in Crime Case No. 18/07, no name of the applicant is mentioned and looking to all the facts and circumstances and looking to the nature of the injury and that applicant is meritorious student and he was not present on the spot, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail for a period of thirty days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on the condition that he shall abide by the conditions as prescribed in sub-section 2 of section 438 of CrPC. During this period, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for his regular bail before the competent Court which shall be considered by that Court in accordance with law.