Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/22310/2016 of SANDEEP BAKDE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 29 December 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 29-12-2016 Shri Manish
MCRC-22310-2016
(SANDEEP BAKDEVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-12-2016
Shri Manish Datta, learned Senior Advocate assisted byShri Jagtendra Prasad and Shri Rahul Sharma, learnedcounsel for the applicants.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned PL for respondent -State.With the consent of the parties, this case is heardfinally.
The case diary is perused.
The applicants have filed this first application underSection 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicantshave been arrested by the Police Station Gorakhpur,district Jabalpur in connection with Crime No. 779 of2016 registered in relation to the offences punishableunder Sections 332, 353, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 ofIPC.
Learned Senior counsel submits that the incident tookplace on 30.11.2016 at 17.30 hours. The FIR is lodgedat 19.26 hours at Police Station Gorakhpur, which is atthe distance of about 100 metres from the place of theincident.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits thecourt below did not enlarge the applicants on bail for asingular reason that on 9.12.2016 the investigation wasgoing on and challan has not been filed. Shri Dattsubmits that on 19.12.2016 the challan has alreadybeen filed by the Police Authorities.
It is submitted that except offence under Sections 332and 353 of IPC other offences are bailable. By placingreliance on Section 437 of Cr.P.C, it is submitted thatnecessary ingredients for refusing the bail are notavailable in the present case. Considering theaforesaid, it is prayed that no justification in keepingthe applicants in jail is made out.
The prayer for grant of bail is opposed by learned PenalLawyer. However, on specific quarry made by theBench, learned Penal Lawyer fairly submits that challanhas already been filed on 19.12.2016.
It is seen that the court below on 09.12.2016 hasrejected the application for enlarging the applicants onbail on the ground that the investigation is still goingon. Admittedly, the investigation is over and challan hasalready been filed.
In the aforesaid factual backdrop no useful purposedwould be served in keeping the applicants in custody.The trial will consume sufficient amount of time and,therefore, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicants onbail.
Accordingly, it is directed that the applicants bereleased on bail on furnishing a personal bond in thesum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with twosolvent sureties of the like amount by each of theapplicants to the satisfaction of the concerned trialcourt.
This order will remain in operation subject to compliance of the following conditions by theapplicants :-
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.
1. The applicants will comply with all the terms andconditions of the bond executed by him/them;conditions of the bond executed by him/them;
2. The applicants will cooperate in theinvestigation/trial, as the case may be;investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicants will not indulge himself/ themselvesin extending inducement, threat or promise to anyperson acquainted with the facts of the so as todissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to thecourts or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;in extending inducement, threat or promise to anyperson acquainted with the facts of the so as todissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to thecourts or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;4.The applicants shall not commit an offence similarto the offence of which he is/ they are accused;to the offence of which he is/ they are accused;5.The applicants will not seek unnecessaryadjournments during the trial; andadjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicants will not leave India without previouspermission of the trial court/ investigating officer,as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the court concernedfor compliance.permission of the trial court/ investigating officer,as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the court concernedfor compliance.
The M.Cr.C. is disposed off.
C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL)V. JUDGE
bks