AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunita Yadav, J
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail relating to FIR No. 446 of 2022 registered at Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 302 and 147 of the IPC.
Allegation against the present applicant - accused is that he conspired with co-accused persons and in furtherance Pawan, who is the son of the present applicant, and Malti have been murdered.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no evidence on record to show that present applicant was involved in the crime. Son of the present applicant also died in this incident and prior to his death, a hand-written note of her son was found in which he admitted that he would first kill deceased Malti and then would commit suicide. Under these circumstances so also in the light of the fact that in the FIR, allegation was levelled against five persons who shot the deceased persons, she is entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and argued that it was present applicant / accused who called Malti to come to the place of incident. The applicant was present at the place of incident when the incident occurred. Investigation is still going on and ballistic expert report is awaited. As per the case diary, no hand written note has been recovered yet and CCTV footage is yet to be examined. Under these circumstances, when investigation is still on, present applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
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 at this stage.
Hence, the application is rejected.