AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard. Perused the case diary.
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 7/2013 registered at P.S. GRP, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha for the offence punishable under sections 354, 294, 506 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case complainant was doing MBA from Bhopal. On 23.6.2013 she reached Railway Station, Ganjbasoda for going to Bhopal and she was waiting for Southern Express, applicant came there and asked her to return the ring, which has been given by him. When complainant denied, then applicant caught hold of her hand and started pressing the same with having an evil eye. Applicant also told the complainant that why she has not talked with him. When she resisted, applicant threatened to throw acid on her face. The incident was narrated by the complainant to her mother and the report was lodged.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated. The story narrated by the complainant is concocted. It is further stated that false complaint has been lodged just to escape from the liability as the applicant lent certain money to the Prosecutrix, which she denied to return. It is further submitted that a similar complaint was lodged by the sister of the complainant against the applicant in which compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was mentioned that due to some misunderstanding complaint has been lodged. It is prayed that applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted the complaint lodged by Smt. Ranjana on 26.6.2013 alongwith the photostat copies of the affidavit of Chhaya Sharma in which it has been mentioned that whatever talk was held between them and Pramod Jain was due to some understanding. Taking into consideration the allegations against the applicant as well as the nature of the offence, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application stands dismissed.