Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/3430/2024 of RADHESHYAM BANDEWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3430 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RADHESHYAM BANDEWAR S/O SHRI DADURAMBANDEWAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGEPATELI TOLA P.S. UGALI DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYAPRADESH)
(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)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed thefollowing:
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 the thirdapplication filed by the applicant under Section 439 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/CrimeNo.587/2022 registered at Police Station- Keolari, District- Seoni, for theoffence punishable under Sections 409, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of theIndian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.
Applicant's earlier bail applications were dismissed on merits vide orderdated 24.07.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.29897/2023 and order dated11.09.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.40226/2023.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is incustody and the trial will take considerable time to conclude. He further submitsthat the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. Theapplicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all theconditions to be imposed by the Court. Upon these grounds, it is prayed thatthe applicant be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bailapplication.
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