KAILASH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

(2.) Considering the facts that in the first statement of the injured name of the applicant has not been mentioned whereas the name of the co-accused Bundel Singh has been referred to as assailant and that subsequently when the injured survived, his statement under Section 161 discloses the name of all the co-accused and the applicant coupled with the fact that co-accused Jihan Singh another co-accused Badam Singh alias Badal. Ramraja. Kailash Phulli alias Inderpal and Jagdish have been extended the benefit of bail by order dated 15.06.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3633/2012, dated 24.04.2012. M.Cr.C. No. 3829/2012, M.Cr.C. No. 2223/2012, dated 27.04.2012, M.Cr.C. No. 2421/2012, dated 01.05.2012, M.Cr.C. No. 2304/2012, dated 01.05.2012. M.Cr.C. No. 2571/2012, dated 09.05.2012. M.Cr.C. No. 2369/2012 & dated 08.05.2012, M.Cr.C. No. 2490/2012, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the case is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant in view of the submission of the learned counsel' for the applicant who has placed reliance on the case of Arjun Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. 1986 C.Cr. J. 128, to contend that once an accused is granted bail under Section 439, the co-accused should not be denied bail merely because of applying under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Accordingly. I deem it appropriate to allow this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the following terms. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.