AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J
This is Third application filed on behalf of applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.204/2019 registered by Police Station - Anuppur, District - Anuppur for offence punishable under Sections 294, 365, 394, 506 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case the allegation against the applicant is that he along with other co-accused abducted the complainant and committed marpeet and also snatched his gold chain and ring.
It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case and no specific allegations are made against the present applicant, only omnibus and general allegations have been levelled.
It is stated that the co-accused persons under similar circumstances have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by this court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused person. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case. On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Objector have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and prayed for its rejection. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the present applicant is the main accused in the matter and there is no change in the circumstance.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available PDF file.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety and the fact that the previous bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to surrender and apply for regular bail but the applicant has not surrendered before the Investigating/Arresting Officer even after liberty granted by this court and is still absconding and is not cooperating with the investigation.
Keeping in view the same and taking note of the fact that there being no change in the circumstances and that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in the matter, therefore, it is not a fit case, in which, discretion of granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant may be exercised by this Court.
Hence, the application is hereby dismissed.