Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/2228/2024 of ANKIT SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWALON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2228 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ANKIT SINGH S/O VANSHDHVAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O RAIPUR P.S.KOTHI DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SHISHIR KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICESTATION KOTHI DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SMT. SONALI SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
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 filed by the applicant under Section 439 of theCr.P.C. for grant of regular bail relating to FIR No.142/2023, dated 13.06.2023registered at Police Station-Kothi, District - Satna (M.P.) for commission ofoffence punishable under Section 294, 323, 307, 147, 148, 149, 506/34 of IPC. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed videorder dated 20.11.2023, passed in M.Cr.C.No.49394/2023. Applicant is indetention since 20.11.2023.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 12.06.2023, Sandhya Tripathi,lodged an FIR alleging that her husband Gyanendra Tripathi had gone to attend marriage of the daughter of Sarpanch Devidin Kushwaha. At around 10:30 PMKallu Mama brought her husband and informed that when Gyanendra wasurinating Ankit, Umrav, Anuj and others abused him and assaulted him bymeans of wood sticks. Matter was pacified by Devidin Kushwah, Kallu Mamaand Dadi. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has notcommitted any offence. He is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It isfurther submitted that injured Gyanendra Tripathi and his wife Sandhya havealready been examined before the trial Court and according to them applicantAnkit was not involved in commission of offence as he was not present on theplace of occurrence. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be released onbail, pending the trial.
4 . On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposedthe prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.
5. In this case injured and his wife have already been examined. Injured has not supported the factum of presence of the applicant at the place ofoccurrence and causing any life threatening injury to him. Therefore, havingtaken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, includingchange in circumstances, but without expressing anything on the merits of thecase, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, this bailapplication under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant ofbail filed on behalf of applicant, stands allowed.
6. It is directed that applicant - Ankit Singh be released on bail on hisfurnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trialCourt, for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all thedates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumeratedunder Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in caseo f bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall becomeineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)JUDGEJasleen