Akash Sharma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. While acknowledging the prosecution's case and the alleged injuries, the Court noted that the applicants had been in custody since December 1, 2022. Crucially, the Court referred to the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) report, which indicated only one abrasion on the right shoulder. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found the circumstances justified granting bail. The applicants were ordered to be released upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. They are also required to present themselves before the trial court on each date of hearing. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicants, Akash Sharma and Vikas Sharma, are seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 521/2022 registered at Police Station Janakganj, Gwalior, for offences under Sections 307, 294, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were arrested on December 1, 2022. The prosecution alleges that on May 22, 2022, the complainant, Abhishek Chadda, visited Priyanka Enterprises to collect a GST bill. When he was refused, the applicants allegedly attacked him with an iron rod and a pointed object, causing injuries. The complainant's medical report indicated one incised wound, one lacerated wound, three abrasions, and one contusion, with a subgaleal swelling on the scalp but no fracture or intracranial hemorrhage. The applicants contend they were falsely implicated and that the complainant initiated the altercation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the medical evidence presented. Arguments for the applicants: The applicants argue they have been falsely implicated and have been in custody since December 1, 2022. They highlight that the medical report only shows an abrasion on the right shoulder and no fractures, suggesting the injuries are not severe enough to warrant continued detention. They also claim the complainant instigated the incident. Arguments for the respondent (State and complainant): The learned counsel for the State and the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application, praying for its dismissal.