Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/2930/2024 of AJAY YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2930 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AJAY YADAV S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR YADAV, AGEDABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VASUNDHARA COLONYMALHARA ROAD P.S. KEWLARI DISTRICT SEONI(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI VISHAL VINCENT RAJENDRA DANIEL - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICES TATI ON KEWLARI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI C. K. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This is second application under Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1973 for grant of bail filed on behalf of the applicant who has beenarrested relating to FIR/Crime No.587/2022 dated 15.11.2022 registered atPolice Station Kewlari, district Seoni, for an offence punishable under Section408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, 587 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act.His first application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 25.08.2023 underM.Cr.C. No.30426/2023.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the applicant is incustody since 27.11.2022 and the trial will take considerable time to conclude.The applicant is the permanent resident of district and there is no possibility ofhis absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. He is ready to furnishadequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by theCourt. Upon these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application andprayed for its rejection.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
5. This bail application has been argued on the ground that on account of long period of custody and prospective delay in trial, the Apex Court hasgranted bail to the co-accused Lalit Saryam in SLP (CRL) No.12874/2023 on16.01.2024. According to applicant, he too is in custody for almost similarperiod and was charge-sheeted along with the co-accused Lalit Sariyam,therefore, his case is at par with the co-accused Lalit Sariyam. Although, theearlier bail application was dismissed under M.Cr.C. No.30426/2023, but it isnow argued that applicant had lesser amount credited in his bank account ascompared to Lalit Saryam and on the parameters of period of custody andprospective delay in trial, his case is identical to the case of Lalit Saryam,therefore parity is prayed for.
6. Having considered these facts, this Court deems it fit to release theapplicant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, thisrepeat application is allowed.
7. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail upon hisfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on allsuch dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of the trial.
8. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisionsof Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
DevS
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)JUDGE