Rajkumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 10 October, 2017

1
M.Cr.C.No.11331/2017
(Rajkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.)

10.10.2017
Shri D.S.Tomar, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
This first application has been filed under section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime
No.305/2017 registered at Police Station Isagarh, District
Ashoknagar for the offences punishable under sections 354D, 341,
294 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.

Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant’s son was
admitted at Sukhpur Hospital for treatment of Jaundice. Applicant
no.1, who was posted as a guard there, used to obstruct the way of
complainant for undue favour and misbehave with her. When she
called her husband, who went to applicant no.1 for asking about his
misbehaviour, he filthily abused him and together with applicant
no.2 beat her husband making him flee. Later, her husband took
her for making complaint to the concerned Authority of the hospital,
but to no avail. At 4 p.m. complainant and her husband again
reached the hospital and stayed there in the night. Next day
morning applicant no.1 along with his friends dragged her husband
downstairs and beat him with kicks and fists. When complainant
tried to intervene, they also caught her hand.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants
have been falsely implicated. According to him, the complainant
was asked to sit outside along with other patients as the doctor
was on round. On this, she started misbehaving with the
applicants. There is delay of 8 days in lodging the FIR. All the
2
M.Cr.C.No.11331/2017
(Rajkumar and another Vs. State of M.P.)

offences except one under section 354 IPC are bailable in nature.
From the prosecution version, offence under section 354 IPC is not
made out. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail is made.

In response, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and prays for its rejection.

However, it would not be desirable to enter into merits of the
rival contentions at this juncture. It is well settled that the
considerations governing grant of anticipatory bail are altogether
different from those relevant for the prayer for regular bail.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is
made out.

The application, therefore, stands rejected.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari)
Judge
(and)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *