Madhya Pradesh High CourtAajad Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2016MCRC-21108-2015
               (AAJAD KOL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


18-01-2016

Shri Ashok Kumar Kosta, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Rajnish Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants underSection
438of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend
their arrest in connection with Crime No. 518/2015, registered at
Police Adhartal, district Jabalpur, against them and the co-accused
persons namely Rampyare alias Mirchi Kol, Raju Kol, Bablu Kol,
Raja Kol and Lallu Kol for the offences punishable underSections
452,147,148,294,323,324and 506 and later added 326 of theIPC.Prosecution allegations are that in the mid-night of 06.07.2015 in
Suhagi Adhartal, the applicants and the co-accused persons threw
stones at the residence of informant Murli Gotiya. Seeing stone-
pelting, the informant and his family members went inside their
house. Thereafter, the applicants and the co-accused persons
entered his house and committed marpeet with him, his brother
Pawan, father Dhaniram and mother Gyarsi Bai with dands and
rocks.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated
13.07.2015 passed by the court below the applicants and the co-
accused persons have been granted bail underSection 439of
Cr.P.C. Later, the applicants and the co-accused persons came to
 know that the police would file the charge-sheet against them
underSection 326of the IPC. Thereafter, they filed the bail
application underSection 438of Cr.P.C. The court below has
granted the anticipatory bail to the co-accused persons vide the
impugned bail order, but refused to grant the same to the
applicants. Under the circumstances, this bail application is filed by
the applicants. He also submits that the applicants had not
misused the liberty granted to them by the court below. He also
submits that the applicants are permanent residents of Suhagi and
that they do not have any criminal antecedents. He further submits
that as per the medical documents of Dhaniram, he sustained a
fracture which was not detected in the x-ray examination , but it
was detected in the CT Scan, meaning thereby the fracture is hair-
line. He further submits that there is no evidence on record as to
who has caused the said injury to him. Upon these submissions,
learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel
but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of
the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicants with certain conditions. Allowing the application, they
are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before
4.2.2016 for interrogation and submission of documentary proofs of
their permanent residential addresses and contact numbers, if any.
The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicants
in the aforesaid crime, in that event they be released immediately
 on bail on their furnishing 'each' a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousands Only) with one
solvent surety of the same amount to his satisfaction. Further, the
applicants are directed to abide by the conditions enumerated inSection 438(2)of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if any of the
applicants fails to appear before the Investigating Officer on the
stipulated period, then this bail order in respect of him shall stand
automatically cancelled.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)
                                               JUDGE