MCRC No.5368/2010
30.7.2010
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the
applicant.
Smt. Sushila Paliwal, Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.11230/2010, an application
for urgent hearing.
Since the case diary is available, the
application is allowed.
Also heard both the parties.
Case diary of Crime No.248/2009 registered
at Police Station Majhouli District Sidhi for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 420
read with Section 34 of IPC is perused.
Applicant is apprehending his arrest in
connection with the aforesaid crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the Police Station Majhouli has registered the
Crime No.248/2009 for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC for the death of one
Devendra Tiwari. On investigation, it was found
that some of the accused persons had committed
the aforesaid crime and the police has filed the
challan against the culprits showing one Akhilesh
@ Vijay to be absconding. In the original challan,
there was no name of the present applicant
mentioned as an accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that after arrest of Akhilesh @ Vijay, the
police has again submitted a supplementary
challan showing the applicant to be absconding.
He has further submitted that if the applicant was
present at the time of incident along with other co-
accused persons, then what was the reason the
other co-accused persons did not mention his name
in the interrogation. He further submits that one
Suryakant Tripathi @ Kutkut was in custody with
the accused Akhilesh @ Vijay, who instigated to
tell the name of the present applicant and
ultimately he told the name of the applicant in his
memo under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872. He further submits that the name of the
applicant is maliciously inducted in the case
without any basis. He further submits that the
present applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality
and he has no criminal past, therefore he prays for
anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State
opposes the application mainly on the ground that
the matter is grave and, therefore, anticipatory
bail may not be granted to the present applicant.
Keeping in view the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that
this is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant. Consequently, this application under
Section 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is
directed that in the event of arrest, applicant
Anjani Kumar Tiwari @ Sajjan Tiwari shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with
a solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.
The applicant shall further abide by the
conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
This order shall remain in force for a period of
30 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so
desires, may move an application for regular bail
before the competent Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari.