High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 11 MP CK 0008

Gajendra Yadav And Others vs State Of M.P

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 3 November 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 40722 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 265 words

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicants Gajendra Yadav and Natthu @ Ratanlal Yadav apprehends their arrest in connection with Crime No.142/2020 registered at Police Station Ishanagar, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 341, 327, 506/34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution case, on 21.09.2020 at 09:00 PM when complainant Dinesh Yadav was going towards village Guava by motorcycle on the way near Chhidipal's field applicants Gajendra Yadav and Natthu @ Ratanlal Yadav came there, they demanded money for drinking wine and assaulted him, due to which, he sustained injury.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that applicants lodged complaint against the complainant Dinesh Yadav regarding illegal extraction of sand due to which complainant lodged false report against the applicants. Applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial, hence prayed for release of the applicants on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the name of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR and in the MLC report, it is mentioned that complainant sustained as many as four injuries in the incident. So, the applicants should not be released on bail.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation and the MLC report, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.